May a creditworthiness risk which is not acute but merely latent be covered by a global value adjustment, not only in the form of writing down a debt but also by means of a provision for a contingent (guarantee) liability?
Does the principle of prudence require that a provision should take a pre-existing and disproportionate risk into account?
Is a combination of provisions for risk also permissible if one risk is ascertained individually and the other risk globally?
Is double provision for a risk properly avoided by the fact that, after one risk has been taken into account, only the loan amount arithmetically reduced thereby is then used as the basis of assessment of the remaining other risk?
Must not only increases but also decreases in risks be taken into account as value clarification, going beyond the wording of Article 31(1)(c)(bb) of  Directive 78/660 ?
Does a loan repayment between the balance-sheet date and the date on which the balance sheet is drawn up constitute a (retrospectively) value-clarifying fact and not merely a value-influencing fact which has effect only in the year of repayment?
Is the term "association of undertakings" in Article 81(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that there is such an association, such as the Bar Association in the main proceedings, only if and in so far as it acts in the undertakings interest, or is the mere fact that an association can also act in the undertakings interest sufficient for it to be regarded as an association of undertakings within the meaning of the provision in respect of all its actions?
If the answers to the first question indicate that a rule such as national legislation is to be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 85(1) EC: Is such a decision, to be regarded as having as its object or effect the restriction of competition within the common market and in that respect affecting trade between the Member States?
Is the term "undertaking" in Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where an institution such as the Bar of the Netherlands must be regarded as an association of undertakings, that institution must also be considered to be an undertaking or group of undertakings for the purposes of that provision, even though it pursues no economic activity itself?
If the previous question is answered in the affirmative and it must be held that an institution such as the Bar of the Netherlands enjoys a dominant position, does such an institution abuse that position if it regulates the relationships between its members and others on the market in legal services in a manner which restricts competition?
If an institution such as the Bar of the Netherlands is to be regarded in its entirety as an association of undertakings for the purposes of Community competition law, is Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as extending to an institution such as the Bar of the Netherlands?
Do Article 3(g), the second paragraph of Article 5 and Articles 85 and 86 of the EC  preclude a MS from providing that that institution may adopt rules concerning cooperation between its members and members of other professions when review by the relevant public authority of such rules is limited to the power to annul such a rule without the authoritys being able to adopt a rule in its stead?
Are both the Treaty provisions on the right of establishment and those on the freedom to provide services applicable to a prohibition on cooperation between members of the Bar and accountants such as that in question?
Does a prohibition on multi-disciplinary partnerships including members of the Bar and accountants such as the one in question constitute a restriction of the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services, or both?
If there exists a restriction, is it justified on the ground that it constitutes merely a "selling arrangement" within the meaning of the judgment in Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard, or on the ground that it satisfies the criteria that have been developed in that respect by the Court of Justice in other judgments?
Is Article 7(1) of Regulation 3950/92 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may provide that a part of the reference quantity available on a holding shall, in the case of sale or lease, not be transferred with the holding to producers taking it over but shall instead be added to the national reserve by means of a clawback mechanism?
If the answer to 1 above is in the affirmative: Is the procedure chosen by the Member State to make such provision subject only to principles of national law or is the said procedure subject to the fundamental principles of Community law including a principle of legal certainty?
If the answer to 1 above is in the affirmative and the national procedure is subject to Community Law: Is a national procedure whereby the MS empowers the Competent Authority to make a determination of the cases of transfers referred to in Article 7(1) the Regulation No 3950/92 where any part of the Milk Quota is to be added to the national reserve and provides that such determination be made by administrative notice to be published in a national newspaper contrary to the principle of legal certainty in Community law?
Are paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 3 of Regulation 1484/95 valid, inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price laid down in Article 2(1) of that regulation and that the duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the consignment concerned only if the importer so requests?
When a national measure generally prohibiting exports of waste for disposal is justified by the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with Article 4(3)(a)(i) of the Regulation, is it also necessary, because that provision uses the expression in accordance with the Treaty, for that national measure to be subject to a further and separate review of its compatibility with Article 28 et seq. of the EC Treaty?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the case of an export ban imposed by national legislation and restricted as to quantity, is review of the legislative provisions as such sufficient or must there be a review of each individual case in which an intended export is prohibited in application of the legislative provision?
Are the Member States authorised by Article 4(3) of Regulation 259/93 to adopt legislation which, in the context of obligations to offer waste for disposal where that waste requires special supervision, makes the shipment of such waste to other Member States subject to the condition that the intended disposal satisfies the requirements of the state of dispatch on environmental protection?
Does Article 3 et seq. of Regulation 259/93 preclude a Member State from applying before the notification procedure a procedure of its own in relation to the offer and allocation of waste, applicable to the intended transfrontier shipment of waste for disposal where that waste requires special supervision?
Can the mere holding of a product subject to excise duty within the meaning of Article 3(1) of  Directive 92/12 be regarded as a release for consumption within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 92/12, if and in so far as duty has not already been levied on it pursuant to the applicable provisions of Community law and national legislation?
On a proper construction of Article 5(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, does it preclude a national provision whereby classification as a "supply of goods" of the grant, transfer, modification, waiver or termination of rights in rem is made subject to the condition that the total consideration, plus turnover tax, amounts at least to the economic value of the immovable property to which the rights in rem relate?
Do Articles 13B(b) and C(a) of the Sixth Directive preclude the adoption of a national provision which, for the purposes of applying the VAT exemption, allows the grant of a usufructuary right over immovable property for a limited period of time to be regarded as leasing or letting of immovable property?
Do payments which a new shareholder, allowed to acquire the new shares on an increase in capital, does not make itself but makes through its parent company amount to a "contribution of assets of any kind" within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335?
Do payments which a new shareholder, allowed to acquire the new shares on an increase in capital, makes not to the company increasing its capital but to its subsidiary companies amount to a "contribution of assets of any kind" within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335?
Do payments which have not yet been made amount to a "contribution of assets of any kind" within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335?
Is the capital duty to be paid by the company a "liability" or "expense" which, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 69/335, is to be deducted from the basis of assessment?
Do Articles 82 and 86 EC preclude a MS, in organising its postal service, from maintaining in force legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings?
Do Articles 82 and 86 EC preclude a MS, in organising its postal service, from maintaining in force legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, which directly allocates the proceeds of the dues to the undertaking entrusted with the operation of the universal postal service, without there being any compensatory or regulatory mechanism designed to ensure that there is no allocation of cross-subsidies to non-universal services?
Is there, by virtue of Article 2(2)(i) of Directive 91/533, an obligation on the part of an employer to bring to the notice of an employee, under the conditions laid down by the Directive, any term whereby the employee is obliged to work overtime whenever requested to do so by the employer?
Where an essential element of the contract or employment relationship within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 91/533 has not been mentioned in a written document delivered to the employee or has not been mentioned with sufficient precision, must that element as a result be regarded as inapplicable?
In the event of breach by the employer of his obligation under Directive 91/533 to provide information, is the national court required by the Directive to apply by analogy principles of national law under which the proper taking of evidence is deemed to have been obstructed where a party to the proceedings has not complied with his legal obligations to provide information, and, if that is not the case, whether Article 6 of the Directive precludes the national court from applying those principles?
Is Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC  to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark registration authority must have regard, in addition to the mark as filed, to all the relevant facts and circumstances known to it?
At which stage of the procedure before it should the competent authority have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances?
Where application is made to a court for review, must the court also have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances?
In light of the Paris Convention, Does Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC  precludes registration of a mark composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, when there are more usual indications for designating the same characteristics?
Does the fact that there are many or few competitors who may have an interest in using the signs or indications of which the mark is composed have any bearing on the answer to that question?
What are the consequences for the application of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC , of a national rule which provides that the exclusive right conferred by registration, by a competent authority in an area in which a number of officially recognised languages coexist, of a mark expressed in one of those languages extends automatically to its translation in the other languages?
Is Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC  to be interpreted as meaning that a mark consisting of a word composed of elements, each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, may be regarded as not itself descriptive of the characteristics of those goods or services?
Is it of any importance whether there are synonyms for the word or that the characteristics of the goods or services capable of being described by the word are commercially essential or merely ancillary?
Does the mere fact that a descriptive sign is also lodged for registration as a mark for goods and/or services of which the sign is not descriptive warrant the conclusion that the sign thereby has distinctive character in relation to those goods and/or services (for example, the sign Postkantoor for furniture)?
If not, in order to determine whether such a descriptive sign has distinctive character for such goods and/or services, must regard be had to the possibility that, in the light of its descriptive meaning or meanings, (a part of) the public will not perceive that sign as a distinctive sign for (all or some of) those goods or services?
Is the practice of a trade mark registration authority which concentrates solely on refusing to register manifestly inadmissible marks precluded by Article 3 of the Directive?
Does Directive 89/104/EEC or the Paris Convention prevent a trade mark registration authority from registering a mark for certain goods or services subject to the condition that they do not possess a particular characteristic?
Is it also material to the answer to be given to the questions whether a corresponding sign for similar goods or services is registered as a trade mark in another Member State?
Do the pensions provided by the national retirement pension scheme for civil servants constitute pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome? If so, in the light of the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Agreement on Social Policy, is the principle of equal pay breached by the provisions of national legislation?
If Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome is not applicable, do the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC prevent the Member State from maintaining in force provisions such as the national legislation in question?
What is to be understood by the words "cease to be covered" by the external transit arrangements within the meaning of Article 7(3) of the Directive 77/388, if such cessation does not occur by the goods being declared for free circulation, under circumstances such as those in the main proceedings?
In assessing whether work is "equal work" or constitutes "the same job" within the meaning of Article 141 EC or is "the same work" or "work to which equal value is attributed" within the meaning of Directive 75/117/EEC, is it sufficient, where individual contracts of employment stipulate supplements to pay fixed by collective agreement, to ascertain whether the two workers being compared are classified in the same job, category under the collective agreement?
If the reply to Question 1(a) is in the negative: In the situation described in Question 1(a), is the same classification under the collective agreement evidence of the same work or work of equal value within the meaning of Article 141 EC and of the Directive, with the result that it is for the employer to prove that the work is different?
Can the employer rely on circumstances not taken into account in the collective agreements in order to justify a difference in pay?
If the reply to Question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the affirmative: Does this also apply if the classification in the job category under the collective agreement is based on a job description couched in very general terms?
Are Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 based on a definition of "worker" which is uniform at least in so far as the workers obligations under the contract of employment depend not only on generally defined standards but also on the individual capacity of the worker himself?
Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the fixing of different pay may be objectively justified by circumstances which can be established only ex post facto, such as in particular a specific employees work performance?
Are Articles 49 EC and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a MS, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which makes assumption of the costs of care provided in another MS, by a person or an establishment with whom or which the insured persons sickness fund has not concluded an agreement, conditional upon prior authorisation by the fund?
If so, do the objectives of the Member States system of benefits in kind referred to above constitute an overriding reason in the general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services?
Is the EC Treaty, Regulation 1408/71 or Regulation 1612/68 applicable in a situation such as that before the national court, namely that an individual changed residence from Sweden to Finland on 29 September 1989, that is, before the Agreement on the European Economic Area entered into force with respect to Finland?
Does the expression "nor is any pension payable" in Article 28a of Regulation 1408/71 concern either a pension based on residence, such as the State pension provided for by national law, or a pension based on gainful employment which is payable under the law of the Member State in whose territory the person concerned resides, or both types of pension?
Must that expression be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish that no pension is payable, it is sufficient that no pension is actually paid to the person concerned or whether it must, for that purpose, also be confirmed that the person concerned does not even have a potential right to a pension?
Does Article 33(2) of Regulation 1408/71, or, as the case may be, some other provision of that Regulation, preclude the MS in whose territory the pensioner resides from requiring him to pay the contributions or similar payments prescribed by its legislation for covering old-age, invalidity and unemployment benefits?
Does the fact that the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden have, pursuant to Article 36(3) of Regulation 1408/71 and Article 23 of the Nordic Social Security Convention, reciprocally waived reimbursement of the costs of benefits in kind provided by an institution of one of the Member States on behalf of an institution of another Member State have any effect for the purposes of interpreting Articles 28a and 33(2) of the Regulation?
If Articles 28a and 33(2) of the aforesaid Regulation apply so that an individual may be charged State pension and sickness insurance contributions in the Member State of residence, may he nevertheless apply under Article 17a of the Regulation retrospectively to be exempted from the scope of the legislation of his Member State of residence?
Does the levying of charges, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by the Member State of Residence infringe any rule of Community law in as much as it constitutes discrimination?
Do Articles 1 to 5 of Directive 95/47, read in conjunction with Articles 28 and 49 of the EC Treaty, preclude a Member State from making the marketing by conditional-access service operators of apparatus, equipment, decoders or systems for the digital transmission and reception of television signals by satellite conditional upon a prior authorisation procedure with features such as that at issue in the main proceedings?
Is a national legislative provision which prescribes compliance with such requirements to be regarded as a "technical regulation" for the purposes of the duty to notify the Commission referred to in Directive 83/189/EEC?
Are Article 14c(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Annex VII to Regulation No 1408/71 to be declared invalid in the light of Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty inasmuch as they provide that persons who pursue an activity as employees in one Member State and an activity as self-employed persons in another Member State are subject to the legislation of both those Member States?
Can that invalidity be relied on in order to call into question affiliation and the contributions payable in application of the provisions found to be invalid for periods which predate delivery of the judgment finding them to be invalid and, if not, is there an exception as regards workers or persons entitled under them who have already brought legal proceedings or made an equivalent claim under national law before that date?
On the proper construction of Article 11(A)(1)(a) and 11(C)(1) of the Sixth Directive, what is the taxable amount, in relation to a supply of goods by a retailer in the position of the appellant to a customer?
Must the retailer adjust his input tax in his returns of VAT in relation to the supply of the goods by the manufacturer to him, where the manufacturer has not issued a credit note to the retailer for the reimbursement of the reduction?
Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 3950/92 to be construed as meaning that, on the expiry of rural leases, the reference quantities available on the holdings in question may be transferred in whole or in part only if at the time of surrender the lessors are producers as defined in Article 9(c) of Regulation No 3950/92?
Is a transfer also possible where the lessors do not envisage taking up the marketing of milk but are desirous of transferring the reference quantities together with the land to third parties?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from excluding the right to deduct input tax in respect of certain vehicles after the entry into force of the directive?
Is the first sentence of Article 17(7) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as authorising a Member State, without prior consultation as provided for in Article 29 of the directive, to extend the exclusions from the right to deduct input tax for an indefinite period in order to consolidate its budget?
Are children of a citizen of the European Union who are themselves such citizens and who have installed themselves in primary education during the exercise by their parent of rights of residence as a worker in another Member State of which he is not a national (the host State) entitled to reside in the host State in order to undergo general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation No 1612/68?
Where children have the right to reside in a host State in order to undergo general educational courses pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation No 1612/68, is the obligation of the host State to "encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these courses under the best possible conditions" to be interpreted as entitling their primary carer, whether or not a citizen of the Union, to reside with them in order to facilitate such a right?
Does an EU citizen enjoy a directly effective right of residence in another EU Member State pursuant to Article 18 of the Treaty in circumstances where he no longer enjoys rights of residence as a worker under Article 39 of the Treaty?
Assuming that the preceding question is answered in the EU citizens disfavour, do that persons family members retain the derivative rights that they, as such members, originally acquired upon being installed in the UK with a worker?
Insofar as First Council Directive 89/104/EEC refers to goods being put on the market in the Community with the consent of the proprietor of a mark, is it to be interpreted as including consent given expressly or implicitly and directly or indirectly?
May implied consent be inferred:

- from the fact that the proprietor of the trade mark has not communicated to all subsequent purchasers of the goods placed on the market outside the EEA his opposition to their being marketed within the EEA;

- from the fact that the goods carry no warning of a prohibition on their being placed on the market within the EEA;

- from the fact that the trade mark proprietor has transferred the ownership of the products bearing the trade mark without imposing any contractual reservations and that, according to the law governing the contract, the property right transferred includes, in the absence of such reservations, an unlimited right to resell or, at the very least, a right to market the goods subsequently within the EEA.
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it for the national courts to determine whether, in all the circumstances, effective restrictions were imposed on the third party?
Is Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC to be interpreted in such a way that legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of his goods include any actions by a third party which affect to a substantial extent the value, allure or image of the trade mark or the goods to which it is applied?
Is Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC to be interpreted in such a way that legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of his goods include the removal or obliteration by third parties (in whole or in part) of any markings on the goods where such removal or obliteration is not likely to cause any serious or substantial damage to the reputation of the trade mark or the goods bearing the mark or offending against any part of the criminal code of a Member State or Community law?
Was the Member State Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries authorised to adopt national rules enabling compensation to be paid in respect of loss suffered by the person concerned as a result of the slaughter of British calves?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does Community law preclude the honouring of the expectation raised by a decision under the abovementioned national rules that a specified amount of compensation will be paid, which if solely national law were applicable, would have to be regarded as justified?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Community law, and in particular Regulation No 717/96, preclude the compensation to the appellant from being determined in accordance with the abovementioned national rules?
Does Regulation No 4055/86, in conjunction with Articles 56 and 59 of the Treaty, preclude a vessel traffic services system, which requires payment of a tariff by sea-going vessels longer than 41 metres which participate in that system on a mandatory basis, while other vessels, such as inland waterway vessels, are exempt from that tariff, and if so, may that system be justified?
Must a system of a Member State such as VTS be deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, and therefore prohibited, inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of participants in that system, in particular inland waterway vessels, from the requirement to pay the tariff?
Does the classification as aid prohibited under Community law also have consequences under Community law for the tariff which participants, apart from those exempted, are required to pay?
Is Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to be directly effective?
Does Article 10 of of Directive 92/85/EEC require the Member States to lay down, on a specific and exceptional basis, the available grounds for dismissing a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is breastfeeding?
Does Article 10 of Directive 92/85 prohibit the non-renewal by the employer of a pregnant workers fixed-term employment contract?
Does Directive 92/85/EEC require that a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is breastfeeding may be dismissed only by means of a special procedure in which the appropriate competent authority gives its consent prior to the dismissal which the employer seeks?
Is the exception which applies to the Member State under Article 1(2) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the exception is applicable to an employee who did not himself own any share of the undertaking but whose close relative owned an essential share of that undertaking?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative: where a Member State has implemented Council Directive 80/987/EEC and designated the State as liable for payment of an employees claims against an employer who has been declared insolvent, is the effect of the Directive such that an employee may enforce a right to a wage guarantee?
In light of Directive 89/104 and the relevant case-law, May a trade mark proprietor oppose the repackaging by a parallel importer of a pharmaceutical product bearing that trade mark on the ground that the repackaging is not necessary for the product to be able to be marketed in the importing State even if, without such repackaging, the marketability of the product would be jeopardised solely because a significant proportion of the consumers in that State is suspicious of pharmaceutical products clearly intended for the market of another State?
Are Article 49 et seq. EC (or alternatively Article 28 EC) to be interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of Member State A which requires a (second) registration for a leased motor vehicle, already registered in Member State B, otherwise that vehicle cannot be used in Member State A for more than three days?
Is Article 81 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a party to a prohibited tied house agreement may rely upon that article to seek relief from the courts from the other contracting party?
If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the party claiming relief entitled to recover damages alleged to arise as a result of his adherence to the clause in the agreement which is prohibited under Article 81?
Should a rule of national law which provides that courts should not allow a person to plead and/or rely on his own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of damages be allowed as consistent with Community law?
If the answer to Question 3 is that, in some circumstances, such a rule may be inconsistent with Community law, what circumstances should the national court take into consideration?
Must Article 3 of Directive 68/360, Article 3 of Directive 73/148 and Regulation 2317/95, read in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination and the right to respect for family life, be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may, at the border, send back foreign nationals subject to a visa requirement and married to a Community national who attempt to enter the territory of a Member State without being in possession of an identity document or visa?
Must Article 4 of Directive 68/360 and Article 6 of Directive 73/148, read in the light of Article 3 of each of those directives and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination and the right to respect for family life, be interpreted as meaning that Member States may refuse to issue a residence permit to the spouse of a Community national who has entered their territory unlawfully and issue an expulsion order against him?
Do Articles 3 and 4(3) of Directive 68/360, Article 3 of Directive 73/148 and Article 3(3) of Directive 64/221 mean that the Member States may neither withhold a residence permit nor expel a foreign spouse of a Community national who has entered national territory lawfully but whose visa has expired when application is made for the issue of that permit?
Must Articles 1 and 9(2) of Directive 64/221 be interpreted as meaning that foreign spouses of Community nationals who are not in possession of identity documents or a visa or whose visa has expired have the right to refer the matter to the competent authority mentioned in Article 9(1) when applying for the issue of a first residence permit or when they have an expulsion order made against them before the issue thereof?
On a proper construction of Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387/EEC, does that provision have direct effect so as to override a contrary domestic rule of jurisdiction and establish the jurisdiction of a particular independent body at national level to implement a suitable mechanism for dealing with an appeal brought by an aggrieved party against a decision taken by the national regulatory authority?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: are Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC, Article 2(3) and 4 of Directive 96/2/EC, and Articles 9(2) and 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC, or other provisions of Community law, to be construed as precluding a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings?
Does a legal person constitute a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37/EEC even if it was not established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, but now meets such needs?
If EBS (the defendant) is not a contracting authority, does the planned construction of the second biological treatment phase of the principal sewage plant, Vienna,  constitute the execution, of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by the contracting authority, and thus a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a), read in conjunction with Article 1(c), of Directive 93/37/EEC?
If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, does Directive 89/665/EEC preclude a national provision which fixes a time-limit for the review of an individual decision of the contracting authority so that on expiry of that time-limit the decision can no longer be challenged in the course of the ongoing contract award procedure?
If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is it sufficient for the body inviting tenders to determine that the applications will be evaluated according to a method lodged with a notary?
Must Articles 77(2)(b) and 78(2)(b) of the Regulation 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 79(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a MS other than that of the residence of the person in receipt of an old-age or invalidity pension, or of the residence of orphans of a deceased worker is required to grant to the persons concerned benefits for dependent children or orphans where the conditions laid down by the legislation of the MS of residence for the award of such benefits are not satisfied and where the entitlement is not acquired in the other MS solely under the legislation of that MS?
How is Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice to be interpreted? Where, as in the present case, a MS has not prescribed any national rules enabling national courts to decide on costs of a reference for a preliminary ruling, and to award them to one of the parties or to apportion them between the parties?
Is the creation of a monopoly for the provision of ambulance services over a defined geographical area compatible with Article 86(1) EC and Articles 81 and 82 EC?
Does Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC preclude rules of an employer under which subsidised nursery places are made available only to female employees save where, in the case of a male employee, an emergency situation, to be determined by the employer, arises?
Does Council Directive 85/577/EEC also cover agreements for the grant of credit secured on immovable property and, as far as the right of cancellation provided for in Article 5 is concerned, does it take precedence over Council Directive 87/102/EEC?
Is the national legislature precluded by the doorstep-selling directive from applying the time-limit for exercising the right of cancellation also in cases where the subject of the doorstep transaction is credit secured by immovable property?
On a proper interpretation of Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC, in particular Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of the latter, and having regard to the case-law of the Court, is a transaction which is agreed by the parties thereto to be "binding in honour only" capable of being a taxable transaction for the purposes of value added tax?
Is Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) to be interpreted as meaning that, for the organisation of a competition such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount consists of the full amount of the entry fees received by the organiser of the competition, or that amount less the value of the prizes distributed to the competitors, or some other amount?
Does the fact that the calves in issue come under the common organisation of the market in beef and veal mean that the power on the part of the national authorities to determine the point in time at which British calves are to be slaughtered (because of BSE) must have a basis in Community legislation, and if so, does Article 8 of Directive 90/425/EEC constitute an adequate basis for that power?
In respect of the period before 1 June 1997, must the provisions of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), in particular Articles VII and XIV thereof, Regulation 3626/82, in particular Articles 6 and 15 thereof, and Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as allowing a Member State to take or maintain domestic measures prohibiting at any time and in the whole territory of that State any commercial use of captive born and bred specimens of wild species occurring in the wild in all or part of the territory of that State?
With effect from 1 June 1997, must the provisions of the CITES, in particular Articles VII and XIV thereof, Council Regulation 338/97 and Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as allowing a Member State to take or maintain domestic measures prohibiting at any time and in the whole territory of that State any commercial use of captive born and bred specimens of wild species occurring in the wild in all or part of the territory of that State?
Are the provisions on the scope of Council Directive 93/38/EEC, in particular Article 2(1)(a), (2)(c) and (4), to be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a procedure of a city which is a contracting entity for the award of a contract concerning the operation of bus transport within the city, such as the contracting entity at issue?
Are the Community provisions on public procurement, in particular Article 36(1) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC or the equivalent Article 34(1) of Directive 93/38/EEC, to be interpreted as meaning that, when organising a tender procedure concerning the operation of bus transport within the city, the contracting entity may, among the criteria for awarding the contract on the basis of the economically most advantageous tender, take into account, as announced beforehand, the low nitrogen oxide emissions and low noise level of the bus fleet offered by a tendering undertaking, that if the nitrogen oxide emissions or noise level of the individual buses are below a certain level, extra points for the fleet may be taken into account in the comparison?
If the answer to the above question is affirmative, are the Community provisions on public procurement to be interpreted as meaning that the awarding of extra points for the abovementioned characteristics relating to nitrogen oxide emissions and noise level of the fleet is, however, not permitted if it is known beforehand that the department operating bus transport belonging to the contracting entity is able to offer a bus fleet possessing the above characteristics, which in the circumstances only a few undertakings in the sector are otherwise able to offer?
Are the provisions of Article 56 EC et seq. to be interpreted as precluding the application of the national provisions in question, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a building plot in the Member State must comply with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the acquisition, 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?
Does Article 73b(1) in conjunction with Article 73d(1)(a) and (b) and (3) of the EC Treaty preclude a provision such as the one at issue?
Is Article 3(1)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to generic signs and names, signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade in the relevant or a similar sector as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase etc., without directly describing specific characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, may likewise not be registered?
Does the term consumer relate only to natural persons?
Is the expression “imperative grounds of public security” used in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38,  to be interpreted as meaning that only irrefutable threats to the external or internal security of the Member State can justify an expulsion?
Are the conditions for loss of permanent residence in Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38 also applicable to loss of the enhanced protection against expulsion found in Article 28(3) of that Directive?
Is it sufficient cause in itself, for losing the enhanced protection against expulsion in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38, that the person has spent time outside of the Member State ?
Is an enforced return to the host Member State in the context of criminal proceedings before expiry of the two-year period, capable of maintaining the right to enhanced protection against expulsion as in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38 ?
Is the existence of the “same acts” within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, to be determined: (a) according to the law of the issuing Member State, or (b) according to the law of the executing Member State, or (c) according to an autonomous interpretation, based on the law of the European Union, of the phrase “same acts”?
If the prosecution of a jurisdiction has indicted a person for one offense, and later on prosecute the same person for a related offence of which it was aware at the time of the first trial but chose to omit for tactical purposes, do these two indictments relate to the “same acts”, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States ?
Do Articles 18 TFEU and 63 TFEU preclude national legislation allowing a resident taxpayer to deduct annuities paid by a relative who transferred immovable property situated in the territory of that State from the rental income generated by that property, while a non-resident taxpayer may not deduct that annuity?
Does Article 52(a) of Directive 2006/112 cover a supply of services consisting of the design, temporary provision and, where necessary, the transportation and assembly of exhibition stands for clients exhibiting their products and services at fairs?
If the answer to question 1 is no, does Article 56(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112 cover a supply of services consisting of the design, temporary provision and, where necessary, the transportation and assembly of exhibition stands for clients exhibiting their products and services at fairs?
Does Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEG stating exemptions from VAT cover underwriting guarantee services which involve a credit institution providing, for consideration, a guarantee to a company about to issue shares, where under that guarantee the credit institution undertakes to acquire any shares which are not subscribed within the period for share subscription?
Does Directive 2003/88 provide for reparation for a worker whose employer has determined a working time which exceeds the limit laid down in Article 6(b) of that Directive ?
Does Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 have direct effect for wronged workers or do these workers need to meet further conditions to demand reparations?
Should reparations for violations of the working time conditions in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 be granted in free time or in some other form?
Should reparations for violations of the working time conditions in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 be calculated following the reference periods in Article 16(b) and/or Article 19(b) of that Directive, in the absence of any National regulations ?
Would the answer to Questions 1-4 be any different if Directive 93/104 were in force ?
Does leasing assets through a third party, rather than buying them, when done by an undertaking that does not engage in leasing transactions in the context of its normal commercial operations, breach the purpose of the Sixth VAT Directive within the meaning of paragraph 74 of C-255/02 ?
Is it decisive to determine whether a leasing structure falls within the “normal commercial operations”, as found in paragraphs 69 and 80 of C-255/02, of an operator in order to rule whether that structure is abusive ?
Does the phrase “normal commercial operations”, found in C-255/02 paragraphs 69 and 80, apply to both paragraphs 74 and 75 of C-255/02?
Does the phrase “normal commercial operations”, found in C-255/02 paragraphs 69 and 80, mean operations that are not artificial in that they have commercial substance?
Should an abusive leasing structure according to the Sixth VAT Directive and C-255/02 be redefined as an outright purchase or as a rental agreement?
Is the supplement of EUR 222 per 100 kilograms charged, according to Regulations 1719/2005 and 2658/87, on imports of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus (CN 2003 10 30) void for infringement of the principle of proportionality?
Does the term prevents an on-the-spot check from being carried out in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 correspond to an autonomous concept of EU law, and must it be understood as including any act or omission that may be ascribed to the negligence of the farmer or his representative which prevents an on-the-spot check?
Must Articles 2(2) and 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted in accordance with the guidance in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide?
Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 be interpreted as meaning that an act such as the Decree of the Walloon Parliament of 17 July 2008 which ‘ratifies’ planning, environmental or works consents previously granted by the administrative authorities, in respect of which it is declared that ‘overriding reasons in the public interest have been established’, is excluded from the scope of the Convention and the Directive?
Do Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337 preclude the right to implement a project from being granted by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available under national law before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law that enables that act to be challenged as to the substance and the procedure?
Do Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337 preclude the adoption of legislative acts that do not contain all the reasons for their adoption that make it possible to review whether the acts were adopted after an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the Convention and the Directive?
Does Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive allow a legislative authority to authorise a plan or project without having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned?
Does Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive mean that the creation of infrastructure intended to accommodate the management centre of a private company may be regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest, such reasons including those of a social or economic nature, within the meaning of that provision, capable of justifying the implementation of a plan or project that will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned?
Is the imposition of a sanction under Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 conditional upon adequately informing the farmer of the part of the check that requires the farmers cooperation?
Does the term representative in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 correspond to an autonomous concept of EU law, and must it be understood as including, when on-the-spot checks, any adult, having proper capacity, who lives on the agricultural holding and to whom the farmer entrusts at least part of the management of that holding?
Does Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 require the farmer that does not live on the agricultural holding but owns it, to appoint a representative who may, as a rule, be found on the agricultural holding at any time?
Does national regulation limiting the access of non-residents to coffee-shops of a Member State, fall wholly or partly within the scope of the EC Treaty?
If the answer to the first Question is yes, does that National regulation breach the free movement of services and goods, or the prohibition of discrimination in Articles 12 and 18 EC?
Is the prohibition of admission of non-residents to a Member States coffee-shops a proportionate infringement of the free movement of goods and services, in order to reduce drug tourism ?
Is the prohibition of admission of non-residents to Dutch coffee-shops and the resulting indirect distinction between residents and non-residents which accompanies it, a proportionate measure to reduce drug tourism in view of the prohibition of discrimination in EC ?
Must Article 232(1)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 be interpreted as interest on arrears in relation to customs duties still to be recovered, may be charged under that Article, only in respect of the period falling after that deadline by which those duties were to be paid?
Must Article 214(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, in the absence of corresponding provisions in Regulation No 2454/93, be interpreted as national authorities may not charge compensatory interest in respect of the period between the date of the original customs declaration and the date of the subsequent entry in the accounts?
Does EU law preclude national authorities from applying, for a custom offence, a penalty for which no express provision is made under the national legislation?
Does Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207, within a national system, such as collective bargaining agreements or national legislation, which provides for a difference in retirement entitlement age for women and men, hinder an employer from dismissing an employee who belongs to the sex with the lower retirement entitlement age, until that employee reaches the age of retirement entitlement of the opposite sex ?
Does Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207, within a National system, such as collective bargaining agreements or national legislation, which provides for a difference in retirement entitlement age for women and men, preclude a decision by a public employer terminating the employment of a female employee just a few months after she acquires the financial cover of a retirement pension, in order to employ new workers who are already pressing to join the job market?
Is Directive 2006/134/EC valid, which significantly limits the use of fenarimol, despite the assessment by the rapporteur State indicating that the risks of such use are within the accepted limits ?
Is legislation which merely “ratifies” consent in respect of which it is stated that “overriding reasons in the general interest have been established” excluded from application of Directive 85/337, in view of Article 1(5) of that Directive ?
Should Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337 be interpreted as precluding that a right to implement a project be granted by a legislative act if, under national law, no review procedure is available before a court of law or any other independent and impartial body established by law that enables that act to be challenged as to the substance and the procedure ?
Is it, according to Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4, possible to exclude from the scope of the Aarhus Convention, all bodies who contribute to the legislative process, or only those who take the final, binding decision?
May the Member States exclude bodies and institutions acting in a judicial or legislative capacity from the definition of “public authority” for the scope of the Aarhus Convention, only if their constitutional provisions at the date of the adoption of the directive made no provision for a review procedure within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive 2003/4?
Are bodies and institutions, when acting in a legislative capacity, excluded from the definition of “public authority” only for the period until the conclusion of the legislative process within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive 2003/4?
Is the confidentiality of environmental information within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 guaranteed by a general principle in national legislation stating that the deliberations of public bodies are confidential or is there need for specific legislation declaring confidential the deliberations of each body?
Do Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71 allow for a Member State to exclude from copyright protection designs which fell into the public domain before the date on which copyright protection was adopted in national legislation ?
Do Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71 allow for a Member State to exclude from copyright protection, for a substantial period of time or permanently, designs which fell into the public domain before the date on which copyright protection was adopted in national legislation, if a third Party has already produced and marketed products based on these designs without the permission of the copyright holder ?
Is an arrangement by which a municipal contracting authority concludes with a private undertaking a contract establishing a new undertaking in the form of a share company, from which the municipal contracting authority commits itself to purchasing occupational health and welfare services for its own staff, an arrangement which must be put out to tender, on the ground that the bundle of agreements amounts to the award of a public service contract for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC?
Do factors such as the expressed temporality of a contract and the mix of private and public sector turnover as regards the undertaker, have any incidence on whether or not a public service contract needs to conform to the rules for tendering in Directive 2004/18 ?
Does Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention have direct effect, either because there is not yet any Community legislation to transpose the convention, or because it has become a part of Community Law through the case-law of the CJEU ?
Does Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention include within the concept “act of a public authority” an act consisting in the delivery of decisions, that is to say, that the right of public access to judicial hearings intrinsically also includes the right to challenge the decision of an administrative body, the unlawfulness of which lies in its effect on the environment?
Did a EU citizen in a host Member State, that holds a residence permit validly issued pursuant to Directive 68/360, without meeting the requirements governing entitlement to rights of residence, by reason only of the possession of the permit, remain in the host country as someone that resided legally for the purpose of later acquiring a premanent right of residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38?
Does a five years continuous residence as a worker prior to 30 April 2006 give rise to a permanent right of residence directly pursuant to Article 18(1) EC on the grounds that there is a lacuna in the Directive, if it does not qualify under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38?
Are Article 1, Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which fixed-term employment contracts may be agreed without further conditions with workers simply because the latter have reached the age of 58?
Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes a provision of national law which, without further conditions, allows the conclusion over an indefinite period of an unlimited number of successive fixed-term employment contracts without objective grounds, simply because the worker has reached the age of 58 by the time the fixed term employment relationship begins and there is no close objective connection with a previous employment relationship of indefinite duration with the same employer?
Must the national courts disapply the provision of national law that goes against Clause 5(1) in the Framework Agreement ?
Does a general and absolute ban on selling the contract goods to end-users via the internet, imposed on authorised distributors in the context of a selective distribution network, have the object of restricting competition for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU?
Can a selective distribution contract containing such a clause benefit from the block exemption provided for by Regulation No 2790/1999?
If the answer to question 2 is no, can it benefit from an individual exemption pursuant to Article 101(3) TFEU?
For the purposes of Articles 13 and 19 of Regulation No 1768/92, is it sufficient for an authorisation to be the “first authorisation to place … on the market in the Community”, that it is granted in pursuance of a national law which is compliant with Directive 65/65?
For the purposes of Articles 13 and 19 of Regulation No 1768/92, does the expression “first authorisation to place … on the market in the Community” include authorisations which had been permitted by national law to co-exist with an authorisation regime which complies with Directive 65/65?
Is a product which is authorised to be placed on the market for the first time in the EEC without going through the administrative procedure laid down in Directive 65/65 within the scope of Regulation No 1768/92 as defined by Article 2, and hence its SPC invalid?
Consider an undertaking with activities in at least two Member States that is in a state of insolvency. Do the employees have the right to take advantage of the most favourable guarantee from an institution with which the employer is insured, according to Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987 ?
Does Article 29 of the EC Treaty preclude national legislation that prohibits the movement of dried grapes between two geographical areas within a Member State?
Is ‘protection of the quality of a product which is defined geographically by the national law of a Member State and which has not been granted the possibility of bearing a particular distinguishing name which would mark its generally acknowledged superior quality and uniqueness due to its originating from a certain geographical area’, sufficient cause to invoke Article 30 of the EC Treaty and the right to derogation from Article 29 of the EC Treaty?
Does EU law allow a Member State to invoke the expiry of a limitation period as a defense against the exercise of a right arising under a directive (82/76/EEC) or against the enforcement of the right to compensation for the damage resulting from the failure to transpose the directive correctly within the prescribed period ?
Does EU law allow a Member State to invoke the expiry of a limitation period as a defence against the exercise of a right arising under a Directive or against the enforcement of the right to compensation for the damage resulting from the failure to transpose the Directive correctly within the prescribed period, only from the point at which the Court finds that there has been a breach of EU law until the correct transposition of the Directive ?
Is the phrase “civil and commercial matters” in Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted in such a way that this Regulation applies also to the recognition and enforcement of an order for payment of a fine or penalty to a Member State for non-respect of a previous order for payment?
Is Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 to be interpreted as applying also to enforcement proceedings relating to an order made in another Member State concerning an infringement of intellectual property rights and the cost determination orders for these proceedings ?
Is a Union citizen, being a citizen of two Member States, and resident in the same Member State her entire life a beneficiary within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38?
Has such a person resided legally within the host Member State for the purpose of Article 16 of Directive 2004/38 while not being able to satisfy the requirements of Article 7 of the same directive?
Do the provisions of the TFEU (and the Charter) on European Union citizenship confer on a relative in the ascending line who is a third country national, upon whom his minor children, who are EU citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of which they are nationals and in which they reside, and also exempt the relative from having to obtain a work permit in that Member State?
Does Article 17(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC allow a Member State to refuse deduction of input VAT paid on the acquisition of goods in that Member State, where those goods have been used for the purposes of leasing transactions carried out in another Member State and those output transactions have not been subject to VAT in the second Member State?
May the transaction at issue be qualified as constituting an abusive practice within the meaning of the decision of the Court in C-255/02 (Halifax)?
Consider a case of right of access to environmental information. Which date is decisive for whether the case should be resolved according to Directive 90/313 or Directive 2003/4 which replaces the previous Directive? Is it a) the date at which the information was transmitted to the competent Authority; or b) when the demand for the information was submitted; or c) when the Authority made its decision in response to the demand ?
Must the term “environmental information” in Article 2 of Directive 2003/4 be interpreted as meaning that it includes information submitted within the framework of a national procedure for the authorisation of a plant protection product with a view to setting the maximum quantity of a pesticide?
Must Article 14 of Directive 91/414 be applied in such a manner as not to violate the obligations of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 ?
May the interpretation by the competent Authority of Article 4 of Directive 2003/4, specifically in the weighting of interests in deciding whether to release information or not, be effected by National legislation ?
Must Article 98 of Regulation No 40/94 be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition issued by a Community trade mark court has effect, either directly or through a further decision by that Court, as a matter of law throughout the entire area of the European Union ?
Must Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 be interpreted as meaning that the coercive measures which a Community trade-mark Court, by application of its national law, has attached to the prohibition issued by it, are applicable within the territories of the Member States in which that prohibition would have effect?
Must Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court may order coercive measures to be imposed in other Member States ?
Do Articles 1, 2 and 18 of Directive 2003/55 and Article 3 of Regulation No 1775/2005 preclude national legislation establishing a separate tariff regime for the transit activity, which derogates from the rules governing transportation?
Is Article 234 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal, which was established by Article 27 of the European Schools Convention, falls within its scope of application and is competent to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice?
Must Articles 12 EC and 39 EC be interpreted as meaning that they prevent the application of a remuneration system in as much as, although that system expressly refers to the system applying to Community officials, it does not allow for the taking into account, even retrospectively, of currency devaluation which leads to a decline in purchasing power for those who are seconded by the authorities of the Member State concerned?
Do EU law and the principle of effectiveness preclude national legislation that excludes legal persons from legal aid and requires that they make an advance payment before pursuing a claim before the c
courts ?
Does Regulation 530/2008 satisfy the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU (Article 253 EC) and does the statement of reasons provide an adequate description of the circumstances in which the Commission may act on the basis of Article 7(1) of the Basic Regulation ?
Is Regulation 530/2008 invalid in so far as the measures for which it provides deprive Community operators of their legitimate expectations based on the fixing of bluefin tuna fishing quotas inter alia by Regulation No 446/2008 ?
Does Regulation 530/2008 infringe the principle of proportionality in that it prohibits Community operators, with effect from a certain date, from accepting landings of bluefin tuna or placing them in cages for fattening or farming even where they were caught before that date or were caught by ships flying the flag of a third country ?
Is Regulation 530/2008 invalid on the ground that it makes a distinction between, on the one hand, purse seiners flying the flags of, or registered in, different Member States, and therefore introduces discrimination on grounds of nationality, in breach of Article 12 of the EC Treaty ?
Is Article 7(2) of the Basic Regulation invalid for failure to afford Member States and interested parties the opportunity to submit comments to the Commission when the latter proposes, on its own initiative, to decide on emergency measures provided for in Article 7(1), thus constituting a breach of the adversarial principle and the principles set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ?
Does a TAC adopted through a Regulation, such as 530/2008, for a certain species, time and area also apply to catches of live fish to be fattened in cages ?
Is Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104 to be interpreted as allowing the proprietor of a trade mark relating to a pharmaceutical product which is the subject of parallel imports to oppose the further marketing of that product in repackaged form on the ground that the new packaging indicates as the repackager not the undertaking which, on instructions, actually repackaged the product and holds an authorisation to do so, but the undertaking which holds the marketing authorisation for the product ?
Does Directive 2006/123 proscribe, in respect of the regulated professions falling within its scope, any general prohibition of commercial communication in National legislation, including canvassing ?
Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and 17 para 2 of Regulation No 998/2003 and Decision 2003/803 preclude national legislation which lays down a numbering system for pet passports comprising a unique number consisting of the two-letter ISO code for the Kingdom of Belgium (BE) followed by the identification number of the authorised distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits?
Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and 17 para 2 of Regulation No 998/2003 and Decision 2003/803 preclude legislation under which: 
1. a pet passport is used not only as a travel document pursuant to EU legislation but also as proof of identification and registration of dogs at a national level; and 
2. the format of the identifying details of the owner and the animal entered therein differ from that provided for in Decision 2003/803 and the amendment thereof is carried out by affixing the new details over the old using self-adhesive stickers?
Must national provisions concerning the pet passport and relating to the use thereof as proof of identification and registration of dogs, and to the use of self-adhesive stickers to amend the identity details of the owner and the animal, on the one hand, and to those relating to the determination of a unique number for cats and ferrets, on the other, be regarded as technical standards within the meaning of Directive 98/34?
Does point 6 of Annex III(A) to Council Regulation EC No 1408/71 read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(c) thereof allow a rule of national law which provides that the Czech social security institution is to take into account the entire period of insurance completed in the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic before 31 December 1992, even though, it is the social security institution of the Slovak Republic which is competent to determine the value of that period of insurance?
Does a judgment from a National Court which allows payment of a supplement to old age benefit solely to individuals of Czech nationality residing in the territory of the Czech Republic, constitute discrimination which is prohibited under Article 12 EC and the combined provisions of Articles 3(1) and 10 of Regulation No 1408/71 ?
Is the Courts judgment in Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 to be interpreted as meaning that the passing-on in the prices may take place in the prices of other products in completely different transactions, with the result that an overall assessment is made of the passing-on over a four-year period involving a large number of product groups ?
Does European Union law preclude a Member State from refusing reimbursement of a tax wrongfully levied on the ground that the amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer have been off set by a saving made as a result of the concomitant abolition of other levies, since such a offset cannot be regarded as an unjust enrichment as regards that tax, as case-law C-192/95 to C-218/95 makes clear that unjust enrichment only can arise from recovery of sums wrongly paid when the amounts wrongly paid by a taxpayer have been passed on direct to the purchaser?
Is it, following the case-law of C-192/95 to C-218/95, justified to refuse reimbursement of an unlawfully charged levy on grounds of unjust enrichment, to the extent that such reimbursement merely cancels out the advantage for those undertakings which purchased domestic products in relation to undertakings which to a greater extent imported products ?
Does Directive 2001/29 provide any assistance in determining who should be regarded under national law as owing the “fair compensation” referred to in Article 5(2)(b)?
In a case of distance selling of material that can be used to copy protected materials, in which the buyer is established in a different Member State to that of the seller, does Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 require national law to be interpreted so that the person owing the “fair compensation” referred to in Article 5(2)(b) of the directive is acting on a commercial basis  in at least one of the Member States ?
Is “acquiescence” as found in 9(1) of Directive 89/104 a harmonised Community law concept and what does it mean ?
When does the period of “five successive years”, equivalent of “acquiescence”, found in Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104 commence?
Does Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 apply so as to enable the proprietor of an earlier mark to prevail even where there has been a long period of honest concurrent use of two identical trade marks for identical goods so that the guarantee of origin of the earlier mark does not mean the mark signifies the goods of the proprietor of the earlier and none other but instead signifies his goods or the goods of the other user?
Does Article 10 (a) of Directive 85/337 preclude National legislation which does not permit non-governmental organisations to rely before the courts on the infringement of a National Community rule which protects only the interests of the general public and not the interests of individuals?
Can an environmental protection association derive, from the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 10 (a) of Directive 85/337, the right to rely before the courts on the infringement of the rules of national law flowing from Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, even where, on the ground that the rules relied on protect only the interests of the general public and not the interests of individuals, national procedural law does not permit this?
Does Article 28c(A)(a) of the Sixth Directive mean that a supply of goods is to be refused exemption from value added tax if the supply has actually been effected, but it is established on the basis of objective factors that the vendor, a taxable person, knew that, by his supply, he was participating in a transaction aimed at evading VAT, or took actions aimed at concealing the true identity of the person to whom the goods were supplied in order to enable the latter person or a third person to evade VAT?
Does EU law, notably Directive 2000/31 and Articles 28 and 30 EC, preclude national legislation which authorises the sale of contact lenses only in shops which specialise in the sale of medical devices and which prohibits, consequently, the sale of contact lenses via the Internet ?
Are Article 42(8b) and Article 44a of Regulation 1290/2005, inserted by Regulation 1437/2007, and Regulation 259/2008 invalid in so far as those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria ?
Must the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that publication in accordance with Regulation No 259/2008 may be effected only following implementation of the procedure established by that article or of the prior check required by national law?
Must Article 20 of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that no effective prior check has been performed, if it was effected on the basis of a register established in accordance with the second indent of Article 18(2) of that Directive which lacks an item of information prescribed?
Must Article 7(e) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as precluding a practice of storing the IP addresses of the users of a homepage without their express consent?’
Must Articles 56 and 57 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement under which a work permit is required for the hiring-out of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC?
On the basis of what criteria should it be determined whether workers have been hired out within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC: only the contractual relationship with the employer in the sending country or also the effective level of integration in the labour market of the host country?
Should the expression "individual reference quantity eligible for premium and available on the holding" in Article 95(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 be interpreted as meaning that, where a producer has received a transfer, during the relevant twelve-month period, of a reference quantity already partly used by the previous holder of the farm during the same period, that expression also includes that latter reference quantity?
Must EU law, in particular Article 5(k) of Regulation No 1788/2003, be interpreted as meaning that the reference quantity of a producer who, in the course of an ongoing 12-month period, took over an agricultural holding from another producer, does include the quantity in respect of which, during the 12-month period concerned, milk was delivered by that other producer prior to the transfer of the holding?
Do provisions of EU law or general principles governing the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products preclude a rule of national law which, in the framework of the scheme provided for in Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1788/2003 for offsetting excess deliveries against the unused portion of the national reference quantity, allows the producer who has taken over the agricultural holding in the course of the 12-month period, to participate in the allocation of that unused portion on the basis of a quantity which includes the portion of the reference quantity already delivered by the other producer?
Is Article 63 TFEU (Art 56 of EC Treaty) without prejudice to the application of National legislation in force on 31 December 1993 which exempts from the tax on the market value of immovable property located in the territory of a Member State of the European Union, companies having their registered office in the territory of that State and does that Article make entitlement to that exemption, for a company whose registered office is in the territory of an OCT, conditional on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion and avoidance concluded between that Member State and that territory?
Does Article 56 et seq. EC preclude national legislation which enables tax services to hold jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax for any legal person interposed between the party or parties liable to the tax and the immovable properties or rights in such properties?
Can Article 42 EC (now Article 48 TFEU), in the absence of action on the part of the Council, be invoked by a private individual against his private-sector employer in a dispute before national courts?
Does Article 45 TFEU demand the inclusion of the years of service already completed by a worker with the same employer in establishments of the employer situated in different Member States and pursuant to the same coordinating contract of employment?
Can the consensual transfer of an employee to another establishment of the same employer, situated in a different Member State, be regarded as a voluntary departure of that employee, within the meaning of the rules of the supplementary pension scheme at issue, in regard of Article 45 EC ?
Must Article 5 of Regulation No 1/2003 be interpreted as precluding a national competition authority, in a case where, in order to apply Article 102 TFEU, it examines whether the conditions for applying that article are satisfied and where, following that examination, it forms the view that there has been no abuse, from being able to take a decision stating that there has been no breach of that article?
Is Article 5 of Regulation No 1/2003 directly applicable so that it precludes the application of a rule of national law which would require a procedure relating to the application of Article 102 TFEU to be brought to an end by a decision stating that there has been no breach of that article?
Does Regulation No 1/2003 prevent that parties who have been adversely affected by a cartel (an infringement of European Union competition law) and is seeking to obtain damages from being granted access to documents relating to a leniency procedure involving the perpetrator of that infringement ?
Do Directives 89/48 and 98/5  give the right to a person, who is a member of a Bar Association in one Member State, the right to use the title “lawyer” and its local linguistic equivalents in a second Member State, where the person lives and works ?
Regarding lawyers, does Directive 98/5 as Lex Specialis exclude the application of Directive 89/48 in cases regarding the right to exercise the profession?
Does the term “imperative grounds of public security” contained in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38 include, not only organised crime such as in C145/09, but also serious individual crimes such as repeated sexual offense of minors ?
Are Articles 43 and 49  of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as in principle precluding legislation of a Member State under which a concession for lotteries may be granted only to a single applicant for a period of up to 15 years, and the applicant must inter alia be a capital company established only in that Member State, must have a paid-up nominal or share capital of at least EUR 109 000 000, and may in the circumstances be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of federal taxation, and can such legislation be justified for reasons in the public interest, and must the proportionality of these measures take into account the fact that the legislation also covers cross-border service providers who are subject in the Member State of establishment to the strict obligations and checks associated with their concessions?  ?
Are the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the fact that the Member States in principle remain competent for the regulation of criminal law, a provision of a Member States criminal law is nevertheless to be measured against Community law if it is liable to prohibit or obstruct the exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms?
Is Article 49 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 10 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service providers State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which the services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust, if that State wishes to introduce restrictions on the freedom of movement, including penalties for cross-border service providers, and must account be taken of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to access, it was not possible for a provider of games of chance duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?
Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary nature of the provision of services precludes the service provider from equipping himself with a certain infrastructure (such as a server) in the host Member State without being regarded as established in that Member State?
Is Article 49 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition directed at support service providers within a Member State of facilitating the provision of services by a provider established in another Member State constitutes a restriction of that service providers freedom to provide services even if the support service providers are established in the same Member State as some of the recipients of the service?
Does an action for damages brought against the Community under national legislation establishing special statutory rules different from the ordinary rules of law governing civil liability in the Member State constitute an action for damages based on non-contractual liability for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and hence does not fall within the jurisdiction of the national courts per Article 235 EC?
Does Article 7 or Article 19a(e) of Regulation No 1768/92 allow the holder of a valid basic patent to apply to the competent Lithuanian authorities for the grant of an SPC within six months of the date of accession, where a Community authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was obtained more than six months before that date but not a national marketing authorisation in Lithuania?
Does Article 143ba(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 preclude national provisions which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an integrator who does have such rights, while those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet directly to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group?
Does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 (now Article 176 of Directive 2006/112) authorise the retention of national legislation applicable at the time when the Sixth Directive entered into force in the Member State concerned, which excludes in general the right to deduct input VAT paid at the time of the acquisition of imported services whose price has been paid to a person established in a State or territory classified by that legislation as a ‘tax haven’?
Do Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665 or other provisions of that directive preclude a national rule under which claims for damages for the contracting authoritys infringement of Community procurement law are subject to the requirement of fault, including where that rule is applied in accordance with a presumption that fault lies with the contracting authority as a body and its reliance on a lack of individual abilities (hence a lack of personal fault) is excluded?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 2(7) of Directive 89/665 mean that, for the purposes of the obligation thereunder to ensure the effective enforcement of decisions taken in review procedures, the decision of a procurement review body binds all parties to the procedure, thus also including the contracting authority?
If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Is it permissible under Article 2(7) of Directive 89/665 for the contracting authority to disregard a final decision of a procurement review body, or is it even obliged to disregard it and, if so, under what conditions?
In regards to Directive 90/425, Decision 94/381 and Decision 2000/766, is it appropriate for a Member State to prohibit, through temporary National legislation, the use of certain kinds of animal feed after the adoption but before the entry into force of a Commission Decision of a similar prohibition, even if the National prohibition is more far-reaching than that of the Union?
Should a beverage fermented on the basis of fresh grapes, sold in 0.75 litre bottles, with an alcoholic content of 15.8% to 16.1% by volume, to which are added beet sugar and corn alcohol in the course of its production be classified under heading 2204 or heading 2206 of the CN according to Regulation No 2658/87 ?
Does the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC preclude an interpretation according to which a Commission decision which, according to its first paragraph, is addressed only to a specific person is also binding on other undertakings which, in view of the meaning and purpose of the decision, are to be treated in the same way?
Does the supply by the proprietor of a trade mark of items bearing that mark, intended for demonstration to consumers in authorised retail outlets, and of bottles also bearing the mark from which small quantities can be taken for supply to consumers as free samples amount to those goods being put on the market within the meaning of Directive 89/104 and Regulation No 40/94 ?
Is the removal of the packaging of cosmetic goods, according to Directive 89/104 and Regulation No 40/94, an infringement of the exclusive right of the proprietor of the trade-mark affixed to those goods, entitling the proprietor to oppose the resale of goods whose packaging has been so removed ?
Is, on a proper construction of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, the proprietor of a trade mark entitled to prevent an online marketplace operator from advertising – on the basis of a keyword which is identical to his trade mark and which has been selected in an internet referencing service by the operator without the proprietors consent – the goods bearing that trade mark which are offered for sale on it ?
Is it sufficient, for the proprietor of a trade mark registered in a Member State of the EU or of a Community trade mark to be able to prevent, under the rules set out in Article 5 of Directive 89/104 and Article 9 of Regulation No 40/94, the offer for sale, on an online marketplace, of goods bearing that trade mark which have not previously been put on the market in the EEA or, in the case of a Community trade-mark, in the EU, that the offer for sale is targeted at consumers located in the territory covered by the trade mark ?
On a proper construction of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, is the proprietor of a trade mark entitled to prevent an online marketplace operator from advertising – on the basis of a keyword which is identical to his trade mark and which has been selected in an internet referencing service by the operator without the proprietors consent – the goods bearing that trade mark which are offered for sale on it, if the use complained of by the trade-mark proprietor consists of the display of the sign on the web site of the operator of the online marketplace itself rather than in a sponsored link?
Is the service provided by the operator of an online marketplace covered by Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31 (hosting), and, if so, in what circumstances may it be concluded that the operator of an online marketplace has awareness of a violation within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31 ?
Does Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 require the Member States to afford proprietors of intellectual property rights the right to obtain against the operator of a website, such as the operator of an online marketplace by means of which their rights have been infringed, injunctions requiring the operator to take measures to prevent future infringements of those rights ?
Does the Sixth VAT Directive preclude an undertaking subject to VAT established in Member State (MS) A and in Member State B, where different VAT-rates apply, which sells Point-Rights in MS A that are converted to usage of accommodation, such as hotels or time-share apartments, in MS A or B, from applying a VAT-rate based on a method of apportionment by reference to the respective aggregate values of properties in MS A and MS B?
Do services such as those in issue 1 fall under Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 135(1)(l) of Directive 2006/112), and are they thus exempted from VAT ?
Do Articles 56 EC and 58 EC the principle of effectiveness and the principle of effet utile preclude the application of a provision of national law, under which corporation tax imposed on dividends of foreign origin is off set against a shareholders income tax to the level of the fraction of corporation tax attached to gross dividends distributed by companies in that Member State ?
Do Articles 56 and 58 of the EC Treaty, the principle of effectiveness and the principle of effet utile preclude the application of a provision of National law, under which the degree of detail and the form of evidence to be adduced by a shareholder fully taxable in one Member State in order to benefit in that Member State from a tax credit in respect of receipt of dividends paid by a capital company established in another Member State must be the same as those required where the dividend-paying company is established in the first Member State ?
Does the principle of effectiveness preclude national legislation which, retroactively and without any transitional period, does not permit a person fully taxable in the Member State concerned to offset the foreign corporation tax imposed on dividends paid to that person by a capital company established in another Member State by submitting either a certificate relating to that tax in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the first Member State, or documents any evidence allowing the tax authorities of that first Member State to determine whether the conditions for obtaining that tax advantage were met ?
Do Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU (Articles 56 and 43 of the EC Treaty) preclude legislation of a Member State intended to eliminate economic double taxation of dividends which allows a parent company to set off against the advance payment, for which it is liable when it redistributes to its shareholders dividends paid by its subsidiaries, the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they originate from a subsidiary established in that Member State, but does not offer that option if those dividends originate from a subsidiary established in another Member State ?
Does EU law (notably C-398/09, paragraphs 20-25) preclude the administration refusing to reimburse the sums paid by the parent company on the ground either that such reimbursement would lead to the unjust enrichment of that company, or that the sum paid by the parent company does not constitute an accounting or tax charge for it but is set off against the total of the sums which may be redistributed to its shareholders ?
Do the principles of equivalence and effectiveness preclude the reimbursement to a parent company of sums which ensure the application of the same tax regime to dividends distributed by subsidiaries of that company established in Member Stat A and dividends distributed by subsidiaries of that company established in other Member States, which are subsequently redistributed by the parent company, being subject to the condition that the person liable for the tax furnishes evidence which is in his sole possession and relating in particular to the rate of taxation actually applied and the amount of tax actually paid on profits made by subsidiaries established in other Member States ?
Is Regulation No 729/2004, as rectified, invalid on the ground that the Commission has restricted the scope of heading 9021 of the CN in that regulation ?
Is Regulation No 729/2004, as rectified, invalid on the ground that the Commission has incorrectly classified the walker-rollator in the CN ?
Where the economic operator selected by an authority in a public procurement procedure is fully remunerated by persons other than the contracting authority, where it runs an operating risk, albeit a very limited one, by reason inter alia of the fact that the amount of the usage fees in question depends on the result of annual negotiations with third parties, and where it is not assured full coverage of the costs incurred in managing its activities in compliance with the principles laid down by national law, must that contract be classified as a ‘service concession’ within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Directive 2004/18, rather than falling within the scope of Article 1(2) of that Directive ?
Do Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, mean that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prevent a competitor from displaying – on the basis of a keyword which is identical to that trade mark and which has been selected in an internet referencing service by the competitor without the proprietors consent – an advertisement for goods or services identical to those for which that mark is registered which would mislead members of the relevant public to believe, incorrectly, that the advertiser is a member of the trade mark proprietors commercial network ?
Do Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, mean that a provider of internet referencing services must permit trade-mark proprietors to prevent signs identical to their trade-marks being selected as keywords by their competitors products ?
Does Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36, prescribe the gross principle or the net principle?
On the assumption that a Member State prescribes the net principle, is that then compatible with Article 11(3) in conjunction with Article 3(1) of  Directive 89/552 or with Article 10 of the EC Treaty, Articles 12 EC, 28 EC and 49 EC, Article 81 EC and the general principle of equality?
May a court of a Contracting State refuse to recognise, as contrary to its public policy, by virtue of Article 27, point 1, of the Brussels Convention, a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State on a civil claim introduced in criminal proceedings, where the jurisdiction of the second court is based solely on the victims nationality?
May the court of the State in which enforcement is sought take into account under public policy within the meaning of Article 27, point 1, of the Brussels Convention, that the criminal court of the State of origin did not allow the debtor to be defended by a lawyer in a civil-law procedure for damages instituted within the criminal proceedings because he, a resident of another Contracting State, was charged with an intentional offence and did not appear in person?
If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative: May the court of the State in which enforcement is sought take into account under public policy within the meaning of Article 27, point 1, of the Brussels Convention that the court of the State of origin based its jurisdiction solely on the nationality of the injured party and additionally prevented the defendant from being legally represented?
Is Article 16(1)(a) of the Brussels Convention applicable if the tour operators performance obligation is limited to making available a holiday home and automatic provision of travel cost and cancellation insurance, but the owner and lessee of the holiday home are not domiciled in the same Contracting State?
Has the national law on VAT, by making subject to that tax any letting or lease of immovable property in which an economic activity is pursued, correctly transposed Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEC?
Should the Court rule that Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEC has not been correctly transposed, is that Community provision, in so far as it lays down a general exemption from VAT in respect of leases of immovable property, directly applicable?
Having regard to Article 1 of Directive 95/40/EC, Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom, ECSC, EC and Article 1 of Directive 96/15/EC, does the ban on the importation of organisms of the Citrus genus still apply in the Member State?
Is the national law at issue, which implemented Directive 95/40/EC, incompatible, so far as the relevant provisions are concerned, with the discontinuance of the ban on imports into the Member States territory of plant organisms of the Citrus genus, as would appear to result from the combined effect of Directive 95/40/EC, Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom, ECSC, EC and Article 1 of Directive 96/15/EC?
Is the mid-term amendment of the OCT Decision (Decision 91/482/EEC) by Council Decision 97/803/EC proportionate?
Is it acceptable for the restrictive consequences of that Council decision (the deletion of "milling" as a relevant method of processing) to be (far) more serious than would have been the case had recourse been had to safeguard measures pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT Decision  (Decision 91/482/EEC)?
Is it compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular Part IV thereof, for a Council decision (in the present case, Decision 97/803/EC)  of the kind referred to in the second paragraph of Article 136 of the Treaty to include quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having equivalent effect?
Is the answer to the previous question different if those restrictions or measures are in the form of tariff quotas or limitations to the provisions relating to origin or a combination of the two or if the provisions in question comprise safeguard measures or not?
Does is exist, having regard in particular to the Part IV of the Treaty, a locking principle whereby the advantages accorded to the OCTs as the process of association is taken forward in stages cannot be detracted from?
If that is indeed the case, are the Council decisions at issue therefore void and can individuals then rely on that in proceedings before the national court?
Was it, after the end of the first five-year period referred to in Article 240(1) of the OCT Decision  (Decision 91/482/EEC), still open to the Council, under that provision, to review that decision?
Is the Councils amending Decision (97/803/EC) contrary to Article 133(1) of the EC Treaty?
Is Council Decision 97/803/EC valid, having regard to the expectations aroused by the information brochure (DE 76) distributed by the Commission, given that the brochure states that the period of validity of the Sixth OCT Decision is now ten (previously five) years?
Is Article 108b of Council Decision 97/803/EC so unworkable that it must be deemed to be invalid?
Does the national court have jurisdiction, in circumstances such as those described in Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Suderdithmarschen and Others and subsequent cases, to adopt an interim measure in advance, in the event of an imminent breach of Community law by a non-Community enforcement body designated by Community law, in order to prevent that breach?
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and that assessment of the circumstances referred to in that question is a matter for the Court of Justice, rather than the national court, are the circumstances described in this judgment such as to justify a measure of the kind referred to in the previous question?
As Community law now stands, can those subject to it acquire rights under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member States must respect, where the loading and unloading in port areas of goods imported by sea from one Member State into the territory of another Member State and port work in general are reserved exclusively to recognised dockers, where binding rates (salaries) must be applied, even though the work can be performed by ordinary (that is to say non-recognised) dockers?
Are recognised dockers, as referred to in the national law and having the exclusive right to perform dock work within port areas, to be regarded as entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty, and would they no longer be able to carry out their special duties if Article 90(1) and the prohibitory provisions of Articles 7, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty were to be applied to them?
Is Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, where a persons sole economic activity consists in the letting of tangible property to the partnership of which he is a member, that letting, whilst being an economic activity, cannot be regarded as an independent activity?
Is Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC, to be interpreted as requiring contracting authorities to accept a tender even if it is the only tender still remaining in the tendering procedure?
Is Article 18(1) sufficiently specific and precise for it to be relied on by individuals in proceedings under national law and, as part of Community law, to be used to oppose provisions of national law?
Is Article 1 of Regulation 1395/94 to be interpreted as meaning that a countervailing charge is to be levied on sour cherries which have deteriorated through the formation of mould and incipient fermentation to such an extent that the only economic use to which they can be put is distillation?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Annex I to Regulation 2658/87, in the version in Regulation 2551/93, and in particular note 1 to Chapter 8 of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning that the goods described in Question 1 are to be classified under subheading 0809 20 20 or 0809 20 60?
Is Article 1(1) of Directive 88/361/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a restriction arising from a provision of the income tax legislation of a Member State which exempts shareholders, up to a certain amount, from liability to income tax on dividends, but restricts that exemption to dividends paid in respect of shares in companies established in that Member State, has been prohibited since 1 July 1990 pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive?
If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, are Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a restriction of the kind referred to in that question is incompatible with one or both of those articles?
Do the answers to the questions set out above differ depending on whether the person seeking the benefit of such an exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an employee of a subsidiary company who holds the shares in question in the context of an employees' savings plan?
Is the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, together with the Additional Protocol to be interpreted as conferring benefits on a Turkish national who has entered or remained in the territory of a Member State in breach of the immigration law of that Member State?
If the answer to the previous question is "yes", does Article 13 of the Agreement have direct effect within the national legal systems of Member States?
If the answer to the previous question is "yes", does Article 41 of the Additional Protocol have direct effect within the national legal systems of Member States?
Does the Agreement together with the Additional Protocol prohibit the application by a Member State of a provision in its national law which refuses that Turkish national leave to remain on the territory of that Member State on the sole ground that his leave to enter or remain in the territory has expired?
Where the competent authority in a Member State considers, in the exercise of its discretion, is that competent authority obliged to take into account the existence of the Agreement together with the Additional Protocol?
If the answer to the previous question is "yes", is the competent authority in the Member State required to have regard to the principle of proportionality in exercising its discretion?
If the answer to the previous question is "yes", what factors are to be taken into account by the competent national authority in determining whether deportation is proportionate?
Is a judgment handed down by a court of a MS to be considered contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Brussels Convention if it recognises industrial or intellectual property rights over such component parts which together make up the bodywork of a car, and affords protection to the holder of such purported exclusive rights by preventing third parties trading in another MS from manufacturing, selling, transporting, importing or exporting in that MS such component parts or, in any event, by sanctioning such conduct?
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the holder of industrial or intellectual property rights in a MS from asserting the corresponding exclusive right so as to prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling and exporting to another MS component parts which together make up the bodywork of a car already on the market?
Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be applied so as to prohibit the abuse of the dominant position held by each car manufacturer in the market for spare parts for cars of its manufacture, which consists in seeking to eliminate any competition from independent manufacturers of spare parts through the exercise of its industrial and intellectual property rights and the attendant judicial penalties?
Is it compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty for a patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect in a MS which is drafted in a language other than the official language of that MS to be deemed void ab initio if the patent holder does not file a translation in the official language of that MS within three months of the publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the mention of the grant of the patent?
On a proper construction of Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, are those provisions infringed by a provision of national law which extends the application of provisions of collective agreements concerning the collection of contributions and the grant of benefits in connection with workers holiday entitlements by joint bodies of parties to collective agreements, to employers established abroad and their workers who have been posted to the area?
On a proper construction of Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, are those provisions infringed a national law which result in the application of provisions of collective agreements declared to be generally binding which: provide for leave which exceeds the minimum length of annual leave laid down by Council Directive 93/104/EC?
On a proper construction of Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, are those provisions infringed by the national provisions at hand which result in the application of provisions of collective agreements declared to be generally binding which:  only allow employers established in that Member State to claim the reimbursement of expenditure on holiday pay and holiday allowances from joint bodies of the parties to the collective agreements whereas?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude the national rules in issue in the main proceedings from requiring employers established outside the Member State to provide more information to the fund than employers established in the Member State?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a national provision, which essentially provides that only workers posted to the Host Member State by an employer established in another Member State, are to be treated as a business, whereas a different definition of a business applies to employers established in the Host Member State?
Is it in accordance with Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty for national case-law to apply a presumption that, in cases in which a course is held in an ordinary tourist resort outside the Member State in question, and the course location cannot, as such, be justified on professional grounds, the course involves such a significant tourism element that the costs relating to the course cannot be treated as constituting deductible operating costs?
If the answer is in the negative, can the domestic taxation system at issue in the main proceedings, be justified by reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular Case C-204/90 Bachmann v Belgium and Case C-250/95 Futura Participations and Singer v Administration des Contributions?
Is it open to an individual to rely on Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC in his relations with the State even though the latter has not transposed that directive into its national legal system?
Must the transactions referred to in Article 4(3) of Directive 69/335/EEC be regarded as covered by the prohibition laid down in Article 10 of the Directive, in such a way as to preclude the collection, with respect to those transactions, not only of capital duty but also of any other levy, of whatever kind?
Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC be interpreted as precluding notarial charges for recording in a public instrument as required by law resolutions to increase capital or to amend articles of association from being varied according to the amount of the capital or the increase therein, rather than according to the cost of the service provided?
Does Community law on freedom to provide services preclude legislation in a Member State which makes the performance on its territory of skilled trade activities by providers of services established in other Member States subject to the condition that those providers of services be entered on that Member States trades register?
Does Article 10(3) of Directive  93/98 preclude a provision of national law which lays down a limited period in which sound-recording media may be distributed by persons who, by reason of the expiry of the rights relating to those media under the previous legislation, had been able to reproduce and market them before that law entered into force?
In the context of an external transit procedure, are customs authorities under an obligation to inform a principal of the likelihood of fraud, not involving the principal himself but liable, if carried out, to cause him to incur a customs debt and, if there is such an obligation, what consequences flow from a failure to comply with it?
Do the EC Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services preclude rules such as the Member State betting legislation at issue in the main proceedings in view of the social-policy concerns and of the concern to prevent fraud that justify it?
Is the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Regulation 3665/87 to be interpreted as meaning that the GCC countries are regarded, where products are processed before being cleared through customs on the territory of one of those countries and then exported to others, as a single country into which all the products resulting from that processing have been imported?
Is a national procedural rule which requires that a claim for membership of an occupational pension scheme which is brought in the Industrial Tribunal be brought within six months of the end of the employment to which the claim relates compatible with the principle of EC law that national procedural rules for breach of Community law must not make it excessively difficult or impossible in practice for the claimant to exercise her rights under Article 119?
Is a national procedural rule which provides that a claimants pensionable service is to be calculated only by reference to service after a date falling no earlier than two years prior to the date of her claim compatible with the principle of EC law that national procedural rules for breach of Community law must not make it excessively difficult or impossible in practice for the claimant to exercise her rights under Article 119?
In order to ensure compliance with the principle of equivalence, may a national court hold that an action alleging infringement of provisions of a law such as the EPA constitutes a domestic action similar to one alleging infringement of Article 119 of the Treaty?
What are the relevant criteria for determining whether another right of action in domestic law is a domestic action similar to the right under Article 119?
Does Community law preclude a procedural rule which has the effect of requiring a claim for membership of an occupational pension scheme (from which the right to pension benefits flows) to be brought within six months after the end of any contract (or contracts) of employment to which the claim relates?
Must Directive 89/665 be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authoritys decision, prior to the conclusion of the contract, as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, regardless of the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages?
If so: Is the obligation described in Question 1 sufficiently clear and precise to confer on individuals the right to a review corresponding to the requirements of Article 1 of the Directive , in which the national court must in any event be able to adopt interim measures within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of that directive and to annul the contracting authoritys award decision, and the right to rely in proceedings on that obligation as against a Member State?
Is a national court required to apply the provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the review directive, even if national legislation contains no provisions to that effect, or conflicting provisions?
In a case where medicinal product X is sought to be imported from MS A into MS B, is it permissible for the person who proposes to place the imported product upon the market in MS B to seek and obtain a marketing authorisation from the competent authority in MS B without complying with the requirements of Directive 65/65/EEC under circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings?
Are fishing rights or spinning (i.e. fishing with a spinning rod) licences "goods" in accordance with the judgment in Case 7/68 Commission v Italy [1968] ECR 423?
Does such an amendment such as that in question of the national law at hand concerning spinning (i.e. fishing with a spinning rod) contravene or not contravene the rules governing the free movement of goods (or the free provision of services) laid down in the European Communitys basic treaty?
Is it necessary to establish a direct and immediate link between a particular input obtainable by a taxable person and a particular transaction in order to  establish the existence and extent of a deduction entitlement within the meaning of Directive 67/227 and 77/388?
What is the nature of the direct and immediate link and what link has to be established within the meaning of Directive 67/227 and 77/388?
Is Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1898/87 and Article 3(2) of Directive 89/398 to be interpreted as meaning that a milk product, , in which the milk fat has been replaced on dietary grounds by vegetable fat, cannot be described as cheese?
If yes, does it matter that the designation Dietary cheese (Dietary soft cheese) containing vegetable oil for a fat-modified diet is complemented by additional descriptive material on the packaging, such as "This dietary cheese is rich in polyunsaturated fats" or "This dietary cheese is ideal for a cholesterol-conscious lifestyle"?
Does the principle of non-discrimination preclude rules which take as the conclusive date of birth the one given in the first declaration made by the person concerned in that Member state and allow another date to be used only if the original document is produced to that effect?
Which of Directive 92/50 and Directive 93/36 is applicable in the proceedings pending before the national court?
Must Article 55 of the Treaty be interpreted so widely as to include the activities of the company in question as a participant in local authorities mixed companies for the management of local public services, where that participation purports to be for the purpose of "promoting employment or re-employment of workers"?
In view of the legislation governing the company in question, may there be applicable to this case the derogation provided for in Article 90(2) of the Treaty?
Do Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty preclude the national authorities from imposing a tax on manufacturers, importers and persons making supplies in that Member State of transmitting-receiving sets operating on two-way channels?
With respect to the VAT paid by a taxable person liable thereto before he starts regularly carrying out taxable transactions, may the terms in which the right to deduct VAT be interpreted as meaning that the exercise of that right may be made conditional, with a view to avoiding fraud, upon the fulfilment of certain requirements?
Must Article 2 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that no liability to turnover tax arises in respect of the person who, for consideration, offers another person the opportunity to deal in cannabis products?
Is Regulation 1188/97, in particular Article 1(f) thereof, valid, especially in the light of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81 and Article 190 of the EC Treaty?
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is Regulation 1785/81, and in particular Articles 3(1), 5(3) and 6(2) thereof, valid, in the light of Article 40 and Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty?
Does the exception provided for by the national legislation not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal declared inapplicable by the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92?
In Directive 96/71/EC does the term "period of posting" encompass the part-time period spent, whether randomly or not, by a frontier worker who comes from an undertaking in a MS, performing, in the course of days, weeks or a month, a part of his services in the adjacent territory or territories of one or more other MS?
Are Articles 59 and 60 EC to be interpreted as being infringed where a MS requires any undertaking from another MS employing persons, even temporarily, on the territory of the first State to comply with its legislation or national collective labour agreements relating to minimum wages, where that interest is already protected by the rules of the State in which the service provider is established?
Are the temporary national obligations set for employees to be understood as solely the minimum hourly rate of pay without assessing the overall position as regards the welfare protection enjoyed by employees who are required in their work to move from one State to another?
Are Council Directives 92/83 and 92/84 invalid from the point of view of the EC Treaty and in particular the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty?
Is Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the right conferred by the trade mark entitles its proprietor to oppose the use of his trade mark in relation to genuine goods which have not been put on the market in the EEC or the EEA by the proprietor or with his consent, where goods bearing the trade mark - which are similar or identical to the genuine goods bearing the same trade mark but imported in parallel either directly or indirectly from countries outside the EC or the EEA - are, or have already been, marketed within the Community or the EEA by the proprietor of the trade mark or with his consent?
Is there a difference between "temporary storage" and "storage of waste pending further operations" or "storage of materials" within the producers premises, and what are the criteria for determining in a given case which of those forms of storage is involved?
Is "temporary storage" excluded from waste "management" in the sense contemplated in Article 1(d) of Directive 91/156/EEC and is it exempt from all the obligations relating thereto, including notification of this activity to the supervisory authorities?
Is "temporary storage" subject to the obligations relating to waste "management" or supervision as laid down in Article 4 of Directive 91/156/EEC and, if so, how?
Does the activity carried on by the person under investigation, without any notification to the supervisory authorities, constitute temporary storage under the terms of Directive 91/156/EEC?
Does Council Directive 92/50/EEC permit a company to prove that it possesses the technical and financial qualifications laid down for participation in a procedure for the award of a public service contract by relying on the references of another company which is the sole shareholder of one of the companies having a holding in the first-mentioned company?
Can a member of the family of a worker, who was originally Moroccan but subsequently acquired Belgian nationality, still rely on Article 41(1) of the EEC-Morocco Agreement and on the principle of non-discrimination with regard to "Moroccan workers" and "members of their family" living with them, which is contained therein?
Can a member of the family of a worker, who was originally Moroccan but subsequently acquired Belgian nationality, but retained his Moroccan nationality, still rely on Article 41(1) of EEC-Morocco Agreement and on the principle of non-discrimination with regard to "Moroccan workers" and "members of their family" living with them, which is contained therein?
What degree of relationship - vertical and/or horizontal - is covered by the term family contained in Article 41(1) of the EEC-Morocco Agreement, and can that term also be applied to persons of Moroccan nationality who are related only by marriage?
Is an occupational pension fund, membership of which has been made, pursuant to and in accordance with the national law, compulsory for all, or for one or more specified groups of members of a profession, with that compulsory membership having the legal effects , to be regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty?
If so, is the fact of making membership of the occupational pension scheme for medical specialists compulsory a measure adopted by a Member State which nullifies the useful effect of the competition rules applicable to undertakings?
If the previous question must be answered in the negative, can other circumstances render compulsory membership incompatible with Article 90 of the Treaty?
Is the act conducted by the plaintiff to be classified as a criminal offence?
Is a MS empowered to impose criminal penalties for conduct which, being harmful only to Community financial interests, attracts only a sanction of a civil nature under Community legislation?
Does Article 48 of the EC Treaty preclude national provisions under which an employee who is a national of a Member State is not entitled to compensation on termination of his employment relationship simply because he himself gave notice terminating that relationship in order to take up employment in another Member State
In order to determine whether a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle combination is intended "exclusively" for the carriage of goods by road, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Agreement in conjunction with the fourth indent of Article 2 of the Directive 93/89, should the criterion to apply be the time and manner of each use of the vehicle or the general intended use of the vehicle, irrespective of its use in the particular instance?
In exercising the functions provided for by the national law in question, does the national court at issue constitute a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC and is it therefore admissible for it to refer a question for a preliminary ruling?
Does Article 39 EC and/or Article 7(1) and (4) of the Regulation 1612/68 preclude the national rule in question  concerning the account to be taken of previous periods of service for the purposes of determining the pay of contractual teachers and teaching assistants, under which the requirements which apply to periods spent in other Member States are stricter than those applicable to periods spent in the Member State concerned?
If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative: Are periods completed in institutions in Member States comparable to the said institutions to be taken into account without temporal limitation?
Does Article 7 of Directive 79/7/EEC permit a MS to impose unequal age conditions linked to the different pension ages for men and women under its statutory old-age pension scheme, on entitlement to a benefit having characteristics such as that at issue in the main proceedings, so as to produce different weekly cash payments for men and women in otherwise similar circumstances?
Which is the competent guarantee institution, under Article 3 of the Directive ( 80/987), for ensuring payment of outstanding wage claims in the case where the employees in question were employed in a MS by the branch of a company incorporated under the laws of another MS, in which that company has its registered office and in which it was placed in liquidation?
Do Articles 43 EC and 48 EC and Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which type A and type B intra-group transfers can benefit from certain tax concessions whereas type C transfers cannot?
Does Directive 76/207 preclude a refusal to appoint a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period on the ground that a legal prohibition on employment attaching to the condition of pregnancy prevents her from being employed in that post from the outset and for the duration of the pregnancy?
Does Article 34 of the Treaty preclude a system for the collection and receipt of non-hazardous building waste destined for recovery, under which a limited number of undertakings are authorised to process waste produced in the municipality?
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, can that system be justified either by one of the exceptions referred to in Article 36 of the Treaty or as a form of environmental protection pursuant, in particular, to Article 130r(2) of the Treaty?
Does Article 90 of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 86 of the Treaty, preclude the establishment of a local system, under which a limited number of specially selected undertakings can process environmentally non-hazardous building waste destined for recovery and produced in the area concerned, thus ensuring a sufficiently large flow of such waste to those undertakings, and excludes other undertakings even though they are qualified to process the waste?
Must Article 10 of Directive 75/442 be construed as meaning that public authorities are under an obligation to treat equally undertakings which have obtained a permit as described in Article 10?
Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442 be construed as meaning that that provision and the power it grants to prevent movements of waste allow a municipal system such as that in issue and thereby allow the municipality to prevent the movement of environmentally non-hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if such movement is contrary to the waste plan drawn up by the Municipality?
Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442 be construed as meaning that measures which a MS or a competent authority in that MS has adopted, and which are necessary to prevent movements of waste not in accordance with the waste plans of the authority, are valid and enforceable against individuals or undertakings to which the measures are relevant only if the EC Commission has been notified of those measures?
Is the second paragraph of Article 33(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 to be interpreted as meaning that the additional amount of 20% of the export refund concerned is to be levied even where the goods placed in customs warehousing with a view to advance payment of the refund are not exported - as originally planned - but are put back into free circulation in the Community directly following warehousing and the application for payment is withdrawn?
Does the principle of equal pay for men and women laid down by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and by subsequent legislation authorise payment of a lump sum to a pregnant woman only, and not to the father of the child, when she takes maternity leave?
Does Directive 77/93/EEC and the judgment of the ECJ in C-432/92 permit, and if so, under which conditions, a MS to allow into its territory plants originating in a non-member country, to which special requirements apply and which, under the Directive, must undergo an inspection evidenced by the issue of a phytosanitary certificate, where those plants are accompanied only by a phytosanitary certificate drawn up by the authorities of a non-member consignor country which is not the country of origin of the plants?
Are the provisions of a collective labour agreement which relate to sickness insurance for employees covered by the agreement and under which employers contributions are paid only in respect of insurance taken out with the insurer or insurers selected for the purposes of implementing that agreement contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty?
Does Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 constitute a bar to application of rules of national law under which the identity of declarants or consignees of imported goods, which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit, may not be disclosed to the trade-mark owner?
Does Community law preclude a Member State from refusing to grant the tideover allowance to one of its nationals, a student seeking her first employment, on the sole ground that that student completed her secondary education in another Member State?
In order to determine whether there is indirect discrimination based on sex in a case concerning equal treatment such as that now before it, do Directives 76/207 and 86/613 require a separate assessment to be made of each of the key conditions governing the exercise of a professional activity laid down in contested provisions or an overall assessment to be made of all of those elements together?
May considerations relating to budgetary stringency, savings or medical practice planning be regarded as objective considerations such as to justify a measure which adversely affects a larger number of women than men?
Can the price which a doctor can obtain from the sale of his or her practice, when he or she ceases working on reaching retirement age, be treated as equivalent to a retirement pension for an employed person?
Does Community law, and in particular Articles 30 and 95 of the Treaty, preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes a method of calculating taxable value - comprising inter alia reference to Regulation No 1224/80 - for the purposes of applying turnover tax, stamp duty, a special consumption tax and a regularising tax?
Is Regulation 1224/80 also directly applicable where a tax provided for under the legislation of a Member State applies to goods imported from another Member State?
If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: Is the national provisions in question contrary to the EC Treaty?
Is the administrative procedure for settling disputes provided for in the national provisions in question contrary to the provisions of the EC Treaty, where a domestic tax is levied on goods imported from another Member State?
Are the provisions of the national provisions in question contrary to the provisions of the EC Treaty, where proceedings are brought before an administrative court seeking to establish the liability of the State?
Does Article 13 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities preclude a Member State, which grants tax relief to households with a single income and those with two incomes, the second of which is less than the index-linked sum of BEF 270 000, from refusing that benefit to households in which one spouse is an official or other servant of the European Communities where his salary exceeds that amount?
Must Regulation  545/92 and Regulation 859/92 be interpreted as meaning that the importation in 1992 of consignments of baby-beef originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with certificates of origin issued by the Yugoslav body which was the competent authority, was capable of benefiting from the arrangements for reduced import levies in Article 7 of Regulation 545/92 until such time as a new competent body was designated for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?
Is the first subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation 222/77 read in conjunction with Article 11a(2) of Regulation 1062/87 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of failure to produce a consignment at the office of destination, the MS of departure has jurisdiction to recover duty on import only where the period of three months has previously been set for the principal and he has not furnished the proof required by that provision?
Is the third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation 222/77 to be interpreted as being applicable also in a case in which a customs office of the Member State of departure has recovered duty due in respect of goods cleared for the transit procedure without having set a time-limit with the result that the MS of departure may refund the duty which it has assessed and levied without jurisdiction only if it is proved that the MS in which the offence or irregularity was actually committed has recovered the duty?
Is the Acquired Rights Directive (77/187/EEC) capable of applying to two companies in the same corporate group which have common ownership, management, premises and work, or are such companies a single undertaking for the purpose of the Directive?
Can there be a transfer of an undertaking for the purposes of the Directive 77/187 when Company A transfers a substantial part of its labour force to Company B in the same corporate group, and  what are the criteria for deciding whether there has been such a transfer?
Must a supplement for inconvenient working hours be taken into consideration in calculating the salary used as the basis for a pay comparison for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117?
Are the reduction in working time awarded in respect of work performed according to a three-shift roster as compared to normal working time for day-work, or the value of that reduction, to be taken into consideration in calculating the salary which serves as the basis for a pay comparison for the purpose of Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117?
Does an equivalence accorded by one MS mean that another MS is required to verify, on the basis of Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome, whether the experience and qualifications evidenced thereby correspond to those required for the award of national diplomas and other formal qualifications, in particular where the person benefiting from such equivalence holds a diploma providing evidence of specialist training acquired in a MS and included in the scope of Directive 93/16 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas?
Is the scope of the consumer protection provided by Directive 93/13/EEC such that the national court may determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the ordinary courts?
Does the national legislation in question contain provisions which constitute obstacles to freedom of trade for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?
Must Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a restriction in a provision of a MSs wealth tax legislation which exempts assets invested in shares in an undertaking - provided that the shares form a substantial holding - from wealth tax to which the shareholder is liable but which restricts that exemption to shares in companies established in that MS is incompatible with those articles?
If the previous question is to be answered in the negative, must Article 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a restriction such as that referred to in that question is incompatible with those articles?
Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding legislation under which bakers, butchers and grocers may not offer for sale on rounds from locality to locality or from door to door goods which they are entitled to sell under the terms of their trading licence unless they also carry on their trade from a permanent establishment situated in the administrative district or in a municipality adjacent thereto, and furthermore may offer for sale on rounds from locality to locality or from door to door only such goods as are also offered for sale at the said permanent establishment?
Do Articles 86 and 90 of the Treaty have direct effect in the sense that they require MS not to impose any general and absolute prohibition on acting as an intermediary between supply of and demand for employment and consequently require the national court to treat any activity as a private intermediary for the placement of employees as not being contrary to criminal law, with the consequence that it must refuse to apply the relevant provisions of national law which make such an activity an offence?
Are Articles 86 and 90 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a system like the national system in question constitutes an abuse of a dominant position?
Does Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts still have an independent meaning after the adoption of Council Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts?
If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the provision accordingly mean that, where a contracting authority entrusts the administration of a pig ear tagging scheme to a private undertaking which is not a contracting authority, the contracting authority should stipulate, on the one hand, that the undertaking should comply with the prohibition against discrimination on the ground of nationality in public supply contracts which the undertaking awards to third parties and, on the other hand, that the procurement of goods linked to the scheme should be put out to public tender if the value of the goods to be procured exceeds the threshold value in Council Directive 93/36?'
Is it compatible with Article 48(1), (2) and (3) of the EC Treaty and Articles 3(1) and 7(1) and (4) of Regulation 1612/68 to make the admission of candidates for a competition organised to fill posts in a company governed by private law conditional on possession of the official certificate attesting to knowledge of local languages issued exclusively by a public authority of a Member State at a single examination centre?
Is Council Directive 76/207/EEC, in particular Article 2(2) of that directive, infringed by the national legislation under which women who enlist as volunteers may be engaged only in the medical and military-music services and are excluded in any event from armed service?
Must Articles 177 and 189 of the EEC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a court against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law and which is called on to verify the legality of a procedure for the expropriation in the public interest of immovable property belonging to a private individual may find that the requirements for the procedure in Directive 85/337/EEC has not been fulfilled and the directive has not been fully transposed into national law despite the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose, or does such a finding involve an appraisal of the direct effect of the directive, so that the court is required to refer a question on the matter to the ECJ?
If the answer to the previous question is that the national court must refer a question the following question is referred:
May Directive 85/337/EEC be applied to a dispute concerning the expropriation in the public interest of immovable property belonging to a private individual and may the court, called on to verify the legality of the expropriation procedure, find that the requirements for the procedure in that directive are not fulfilled?
Do the terms "project" and "act of national legislation" mentioned in Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC have an independent meaning in Community law or must it be defined in accordance with domestic law?
If the term "specific act of national legislation" has an independent meaning in Community law, is a measure adopted by the parliament after public parliamentary debate to be regarded as an act of national legislation within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC?
If the term "project" as used in Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC has an independent meaning in Community law, is the project adopted by parliament decision, after public parliamentary debate, to construct a motorway to join two other roads, without laying down the route of the motorway to be built, to be regarded as a project to which the directive does not apply?
Is Article 1(2)(a) and (3) of Directive 93/83/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the reception by a hotel establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals and their distribution by cable to the various rooms of that hotel constitutes an "act of communication to the public" or "reception by the public"?
Is Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement to be interpreted as having direct effect in the sense that the legal consequences set out therein take effect even in the absence of any corresponding provision of national law?
Must Article 3(b) of Directive 88/407/EEC be construed as meaning that semen from a bull which was admitted to an approved semen collection centre before the adoption of amending Directive 93/60/EEC on the ground that it satisfied the admission requirements in force at that time does no longer satisfy the condition in Article 3(b) if the animal fails, at the time when certification of the semen is applied for, to satisfy the amended requirement in paragraph 1(b) of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 88/407/EEC?
If the answer to Question (1) is affirmative: Should the transitional rule set out in Article 20 of Directive 88/407/EEC be construed as meaning that it is applicable by analogy to semen which was collected and processed prior to 1 July 1994?
If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative and the answer to Question 2 negative: Is Directive 93/60/EEC invalid as being contrary to general principles of law, in particular the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality, in so far as that directive does not provide for transitional measures?
The provision in Article 1(8) of Directive 93/60/EEC amended the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(b) of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 88/407/EEC to read "The animals may not previously have been kept in one or more herds of a lower status". Must this amendment be construed as being exclusively a clarification of or as a substantive amendment to the requirements applying in regard to the admission of bovine animals to an approved semen collection centre?
Does the activity of doctors in primary health care teams come within the scope of the basic Directive and Directive 93/104?
Must time spent on call by doctors in primary care teams, whether they are required to be present in the health centre or merely contactable, be regarded as working time within the meaning of Directive 93/104?
Must the time spent on call be regarded as overtime the average working time for each seven-day period, pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104?
Is consent given by the trade-union representatives in the context of a collective or other agreement equivalent to that given by a worker himself, as provided for in the first indent of Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104?
In view of the fact that normal working time is not at night, since only part of the time to be spent periodically on call by some of the doctors concerned is at night, and in the absence of harmonising legislation, are those doctors to be regarded as night workers pursuant to Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 93/104?
In view of the fact that the working time at issue is shift work only in relation to time on call, and in the absence of harmonising legislation, can the work of the doctors concerned be regarded as shift work and must they be regarded as shift workers in accordance with the definition contained in Article 2(5) and (6) of Directive 93/104?
Whenever a MS authorises the placing on the market in its territory of a plant protection product pursuant to Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, does Article 8(3) of that Directive apply so as to require the MS to evaluate the application for authorisation in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) and (c) to (f)?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the MS under an obligation to apply the requirements of Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) to such applications "in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge"?
If the answers to Questions 1, 2 and/or 3 are in the affirmative, is the MS under an obligation to ensure that its national provisions concerning the data to be provided permit an evaluation to be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) and (c) to (f) of the Directive "in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge"?
Is Regulation 1509/97 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature - in this case rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide x 72 mm high, used in the construction of window frames, consisting of layers of wood glued together with the grain running parallel and with slightly rounded edges - invalid?
Must the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that proof of the place where an offence or irregularity was committed which is required by the customs authorities of the MS where the offence or irregularity has been detected can only be produced in the form of documents showing that the competent authorities in another MS have established that the offence or irregularity was actually committed in that State?
Must the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 454(3) of Regulation 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that the compensation mechanism provided for by that regulation also applies in cases where the duties and other charges have been levied by the MS where the offence was detected even though it had been satisfactorily proved that the offence was actually committed in another MS?
Does Regulation 2081/92 preclude the application of a national provision which prohibits the misleading use of a simple geographical designation of source, that is, an indication in the case of which there is no link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical provenance?
For the purposes of determining whether national rules, such as the regulation in question, constitute a technical regulation covered by the obligation to notify the Commission laid down in Directive 83/189, is it necessary to take into account the amendments subsequently introduced by Directive 94/10?
Must the term "technical specification" appearing in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that it also covers rules such as the national rules in question? If not, do such rules fall within the scope of Article 1(5) of the directive as thus amended (which defines the term "technical regulation")?
Do national rules which provide that the date on which an imported vehicle was first authorised for use on the public highway is to be fixed at the date on which its registration certificate is issued only where the vehicle has not been registered for more than two days in another MS constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty?
Must Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 be interpreted as meaning that in a specific case it is a necessary precondition for waste to be classified as hazardous that its origin be determined?
Is the list adopted by Council Decision 904/94 exhaustive, so that waste which is not referred to in the list, but which nevertheless displays the characteristics referred to in Annexes I, II and III to Directive 91/689/EEC, is excluded?
If the Court finds that the list of hazardous waste is not exhaustive, must automatic addition of hazardous waste to the list be deemed to operate on the basis of Annexes I, II and III to Directive 91/689/EEC?
What procedure, for the purposes of Article 1(4), second indent, of Directive 91/689, must an individual MS follow at national level in classifying waste as hazardous and what body is competent to make that assessment, in accordance with Annex III to the directive, and subsequently to notify the Commission?
Can the judicial authorities of an individual Member State also be required to notify the Commission?
Under Community legislation, is diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) to be classified as hazardous waste or not?
Can it be inferred from the legislative history of Directive 92/50/EEC, in particular the proposal of the Commission, or from the definition of the term "public service contract" in Article 1(a), that certain categories of contracts concluded by contracting authorities subject to that directive are to be excluded a priori from its scope, solely on the basis of certain common characteristics as specified in that proposal of the Commission?
Is such a contract, although it is covered by Directive 93/38/EEC or Directive 93/38/EEC , excluded, as Community law stands at present, from the scope of the directive which covers it, because, in particular, the consideration provided by the first undertaking to the second consists in the second obtaining the right to exploit for payment its own service?
If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: May those categories of contracts excluded from the scope of Directive 93/38/EEC be adequately described, by analogy with Commission Proposal COM (90) 372 final, as having as their essential feature that a contracting entity which falls within the scope ratione personae of that Directive cedes a service for which it is responsible to an undertaking of its choice in return for the right to operate the service concerned for financial gain?
Is a contracting entity which falls within the scope of Directive 93/38/EEC obliged, where a contract concluded by it contains elements of a service contract within the meaning of Article 1(4)(a) together with elements of a different contractual nature, to sever the part of the overall contract which is subject to the Directive, and make that part the subject of a procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of that directive?
If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative: Is the contractual concession of the exclusive right to operate a service for financial gain, which may be expected to exceed the costs of providing the service, to be regarded as payment for the provision of the service?
Are the provisions of Article 1(4)(a) and (c) of Directive 93/38/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a contract which provides for the provision of services within the meaning of Annex XVI A, category 15, loses the nature of a service contract and becomes a supply contract if the result of the service is the production of a large number of identical tangible objects which have an economic value?
If Question 6 is answered in the affirmative: Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-3/88 to be interpreted as meaning that such a supply contract is to be severed from the other components of the service contract and made the subject of a procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of Directive 93/38/EEC, in so far as this is technically possible and economically reasonable?
Is Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the CN in the version which was in force from 1990 to 1995 to be interpreted as meaning that the transmission of data using the network cards described in more detail in the grounds of this order is not to be regarded as a specific function but as data processing, so that the network cards are to be classified under heading No 8473?
Does a transfer for value, authorised by law enacted by the State and implemented by ministerial decree, of an undertaking managed by a public body which is a direct emanation of the State to a private company formed by another public body which holds all its shares, where the activity transferred is assigned to the private company under an administrative concession, fall within the scope of Article 1 of Directive 77/187/EEC?
Does Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC require it to be held that the continuation of the employment relationship with the transferee is mandatory, so that the workers length of service continues as from the date on which he was engaged by the transferor and he continues to be entitled to receive a single termination payment which treats as a whole the period spent by him in the transferor and transferees employment?
Must Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC be interpreted in any event as meaning that the workers "rights" transferred to the transferee also include the advantages acquired by him while employed by the transferor, such as length of service, if rights of a financial nature are attached thereto under the collective agreements applicable to the transferee?
Does the obligation of sincere cooperation with the Commission as expounded by the Court of Justice require the Supreme Court to stay the instant proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal to the Court of First Instance against the aforesaid decision of the Commission and any subsequent appeal to the Court of Justice?
Does a decision of the Commission which is addressed to an individual party declaring such party's freezer cabinet agreement to be contrary to Article 81(1) EC and/or Article 82 EC thereby prevent such party from seeking to uphold a contrary judgment of the national court in that party's favour on the same or similar issues falling under Articles 81 EC and 82 EC where that decision of the national court is appealed to the national court of final appeal?
Having regard to the legal and economic context of the cabinet agreements at issue in the market for single-wrapped items of impulse ice cream, does the practice at issue in the main proceedings constitute an infringement of the provisions of Article 81(1) EC and/or Article 82 EC?
Are freezer exclusivity agreements protected from challenge under Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by reason of the provisions of Article 295 EC?
Does Article 3 of Directive 84/5/EEC require compulsory civil liability motor vehicle insurance to cover injury caused to the members of the family of the insured person or of the driver of the vehicle even where they are carried free of charge and where only civil liability, without fault, for materialisation of risk arises?
Do the amounts of minimum cover laid down by Article 1(2) of Directive 84/5 also apply to cases where civil liability, without fault, for materialisation of risk arises, or may the Member States lay down maximum limits, for compensation in cases where there is no fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle responsible for the accident, that are lower than the minimum amounts laid down in Article 1(2)?
Must national courts interpret domestic law in such a way as to render it consistent with a Community directive where the directive has been imperfectly transposed or where [incompatible] pre-existing provisions of domestic law remain in force?
Does Directive 69/335 prevent a tax from being levied on the capitalisation by a capital company of undistributed profits, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings?
If so, taking account the special fiscal situation in the Member State concerned, may the rate of that duty exceed the rate of 1% in Directive 69/335?
Does the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK and the right to have that application considered constitute a "social advantage" within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68?
Does the requirement imposed on the spouses of EC nationals to have been resident in the UK for four years before an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom may be made and considered, as compared to a requirement of 12 months residence before such application can be made, as is applied to spouses of UK nationals, constitute unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68?
Must Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 62/221/EEC be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of a MS refusing a Community national, not in possession of a residence permit, leave to enter its territory constitutes a decision concerning entry within the meaning of Article 8 in a case where:

- the person concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the examination of her case,

- notwithstanding the decision to refuse admission and pending the outcome of the legal proceedings, the person concerned was permitted to take up employment, and

- several months elapsed between her arrival in the territory and the decision refusing entry?
Does the national legislation in question constitute an incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) of Directive 92/80/EEC?
Does Article 3(1) of Directive 92/80/EEC confer upon a person chargeable to tobacco tax a direct right to be taxed in accordance with the Directive?
Do Article 28 EC and Article 14 of Directive 79/112 preclude national legislation which, provides that the labelling of foodstuffs and labelling methods used must not mislead the purchaser or consumer to a material degree, particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuffs?
Do Article 28 EC and Article 14 of Directive 79/112 preclude national legislation which requires the use of a particular language for the labelling of foodstuffs?
Must the costs of hospital treatment be reimbursed in accordance with the scheme of the State of the competent institution or in accordance with that organised by the State on whose territory the hospital treatment has taken place?
Is a limitation of the amount reimbursed under the legislation of the State of the competent institution permitted, having regard to Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71 which refers to reimbursement in full?
Do Articles 3(1) and 9 of Regulation 3508/92, coupled with the general principles of Community law, allow the competent authority to disclose data relating to the arable fields sown during previous years, and supplied by or on behalf of a former claimant for arable area payments, to a new farmer who has need of those data in order to be able to apply for such payments in respect of the same fields?
In the event of a refusal to disclose the requested information, is the competent authority entitled, or even required, to impose penalties on the applicant pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation 3887/92, and whether, in so doing, it may rely on information which it did not supply to that person when he made his request?
Is a MS entitled or obliged to take account of the considerations laid down in Article 2(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitat Directive), namely, economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics, when deciding which sites to propose to the Commission pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive and/or in defining the boundaries of such sites?
Is the expression "an area which has been cultivated in the previous year with a view to a harvest" in Article 2 of Regulation 762/94 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation 1765/92 with regard to the set-aside scheme to be interpreted as including land which has been in grass the previous year, where the grass has been cut and used for silage?
Must Article 5(4) of Directive 90/435 , in so far as it limits to 15% and 10% the amount of the withholding tax on profits distributed by subsidiaries established in the Member State in question to their parent companies in other Member States, be interpreted as meaning that that derogation relates only to the levying of corporation tax or whether it concerns any taxation, of whatever nature and however described, which takes the form of a withholding tax on dividends distributed by such subsidiaries?
Does the legislation of a MS which, first, requires private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that type of electricity, and, second, allocates the financial burden arising from that obligation amongst those electricity supply undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC?
Is Article 28 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a provision of national law that places undertakings under an obligation to purchase electricity produced from renewable energy sources at minimum prices and requires grid operators to meet the costs entailed for no consideration?
What does the expression "financed ... by [one or more contracting authorities]" in Article 1 of Directive 92/50/EEC, Directive 93/37/EEC and Directive 93/36/EEC include?
What percentage or other meaning is to be given to the expression "for the most part" in Article 1 of  Directive 92/50/EEC, Directive 93/37/EEC and Directive 93/36/EEC?
Are all sources of financing for the university to be taken into account when determining whether financing is for the most part public or should regard be had only to sources of finance for academic and related activities?
Over what period should any calculation be made for determining whether a university is a "contracting authority" in respect of any particular procurement, and how are foreseeable or future changes to be taken into account?
Must the provisions of Directive 86/653, which guarantee certain rights to commercial agents after termination of agency contracts, be applied where the commercial agent carried out his activity in a MS although the principal is established in a non-member country and a clause of the contract stipulates that the contract is to be governed by the law of that country?
Is a winter fuel payment made under Regulations 2(5), 2(6) and 3(1)(b) of the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 1998 within the scope of Article 3 of Directive 79/7/EEC?
If the answer to Question 1 is yes: Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC apply in the circumstances of this case?
In particular, is the respondent prevented from relying upon Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC where both the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 1998 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 under which those Regulations were made came into force after 23 December 1984, the latest date for the said Directive to be given full effect in domestic law?
Does the Regulation 3295/94 apply in a situation where goods of the type specified in the Regulation are, in the course of transit between two countries not belonging to the EC, temporarily detained by the customs authorities in a MS on the basis of that regulation, at the request of a company holding rights claiming that its rights have been infringed and which has its registered office in a non-member country?
Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from turnover tax laid down by that provision extends to medical services which a doctor in his capacity as a court expert provides on the instructions of the court, in particular by carrying out genetic examinations in the context of a paternity dispute?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does that provision of Directive 77/388 preclude application of a provision of national law which, under certain conditions, allows doctors also effectively to waive the said exemption from turnover tax?
Must the words "have agreed" in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction clause must be formulated in such a way that it is possible to identify the court having jurisdiction on its wording alone?
Does the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention apply if the jurisdiction clause designates the court for the area where one of the parties to the original contract has its principal place of business but it is not proven that that place of business is situated in a Contracting State?
Is a jurisdiction clause which has been agreed between a carrier and a shipper and appears in a bill of lading valid as against any third party bearer of the bill of lading?
What is the applicable national law for the purposes of determining the rights and obligations of a third party bearer of a bill of lading and, in the event that the relevant national law provides no solution, what are the rules which should be applied?
Are the difference in treatment between coal undertakings subject to royalty payments in consideration for the right to operate coal mines and coal undertakings which are or have been exempt from such royalties capable of constituting discrimination between producers, a special charge and/or an aid within the meaning of the ECSC Treaty?
Do the relevant Articles produce direct effects?
If yes, may a national court determine that there is discrimination, special charge or aid notwithstanding the relevant decisions and communications by the Commission?
Does the fact that Banks or NALOO did not challenge the decision or in bring annulment proceedings preclude Banks from raising the alleged breaches in proceedings in national courts?
Does the first paragraph of Article 90 EC permit a MS to apply to second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States a system of taxation in which the depreciation in the real value of those vehicles is calculated in a general and abstract manner, on the basis of fixed criteria or scales laid down by statute, regulation or administrative provision, without requiring the national authorities to carry out an individual assessment of the value of each second-hand vehicle imported?
If the Commission discontinues infringement proceedings against a MS on the understanding that the new national legislation is now in conformity with Community law, may a national supreme court, relying on the interpretation adopted by the Commission, be relieved of the obligation imposed on it by Article 234 EC to request a preliminary ruling from the Court?
Must Article 17 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that a taxable persons right to deduct VAT paid on goods or services supplied to it with a view to certain leasing operations is retained where a legislative amendment post-dating the supply of such goods or services but pre-dating the commencement of the abovementioned operations deprives that taxable person of the right to waive exemption thereof, even if the VAT was assessed subject to subsequent review?
Is it consistent with Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 48 EC and/or 56 EC for national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to permit a group income election (allowing distributions to be paid by a subsidiary to its parent without accounting for advance corporation tax) only where both the subsidiary and parent are resident in that MS?
If the answer to Question 1 is "no", do the abovementioned provisions of the EC Treaty give rise to a restitutionary right for a resident subsidiary of a parent company resident in another MS and/or the said parent to claim a sum of money by way of interest on the ACT which the subsidiary paid on the basis that the national laws did not allow it to make a group income election, or can such a sum only be claimed, if at all, by way of an action for damages?
In the circumstances set out in the orders for reference, is it consistent with the abovementioned provisions of the EC Treaty for the authorities of one MS to deny any tax credit to a company resident in another MS when it grants such credit to resident companies and to companies resident in certain other Member States by virtue of the terms of its double taxation conventions with those other Member States?
Is a MS entitled to plead in answer to such a claim for restitution, tax credit or damages, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, on the grounds that, as a matter of national law they ought to have made a group income election, or claimed a tax credit and have appealed to the Commissioners and, if necessary, the courts, against the decision of the Inspector of Taxes refusing the election or claim, relying upon the primacy and direct effect of the provisions of Community law?
Is national legislation which allows a builder (who holds a building permit or approved development plan) to carry out infrastructure works directly, by way of total or partial set-off against the contribution payable, contrary to Directive 93/37/EEC, having regard to the strict tendering principles imposed on Member States by Community law in respect of all public works of a value of [EUR] 5 million or more?
Notwithstanding the principles concerning tendering referred to above, may agreements between the administrative authorities and a private person be regarded as compatible with Community law in areas where the procedure is that the administrative authorities choose a party with whom a contract for services is to be concluded, in cases where such services exceed the threshold laid down by the relevant directives?
In the light of C-110/94, Are Articles 4 and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 to be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the VAT paid on transactions carried out with a view to the realisation of a planned economic activity still exists even where the tax authority is aware, from the time of the first tax assessment, that the economic activity envisaged will not be taken up?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In the case of a supply of buildings or parts thereof and of the land on which they stand, can the option for taxation be restricted to the buildings and parts thereof?
Do Article 2 of Regulation 711/95, Article 20 of Regulation 1066/95 and Article 2 of Regulation 1067/95, infringe the principles governing sound organisation of the agricultural market in tobacco and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations?
Despite the silence of the national legislature, is it in any event possible to apply Regulation 797/85 to persons other than natural persons, and in particular to companies having legal personality?
If an affirmative answer is given to the first question, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for conferring the status of farmers practising farming as their main occupation on persons other than natural persons and, in particular, on companies with legal personality?
Is a person who is employed by an undertaking which has its registered office in MS A and maintains an office there but performs its activities primarily in the territory of MS B and in the past has performed them exclusively in the MS B a person employed in the territory of the MS A in accordance with Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation 1408/71?
If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there a "posting" within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71 where a building contractor having its registered office in one MS employs its employees primarily on building projects in another MS and has employed them exclusively there in the past over a number of years but the anticipated duration of each individual building project does not exceed 12 months?
Is Article 30 or Article 59 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding national legislation entailing a general prohibition of alcohol advertising, such as the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of Alkoholreklamlagen? If so, can such a prohibition be regarded as justified and proportionate for the protection of life and health of humans?
In circumstances where a Member State has exercised the option in Article 5(8) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, so that the transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof is regarded as not being a supply of goods, may the transferor deduct the VAT on the costs of the services acquired in order to effect the transfer?
Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92, does Article 13B(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC exempt from VAT a supply made by a person who does not initially have any interest in the immovable property, where that person enters into an agreement for lease of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the grant of a lease by the landlord in return for a sum of money?
Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92, does Article 13B(b) of the Directive exempt a supply made by a person where that person: enters into an option agreement in relation to leases of that immovable property in return for a sum of money, on terms that the money will remain in a special account as security for its obligations under the option agreement; and/or subsequently exercises the options and accepts the grant of leases of the immovable property in return for the release of the money?
Does the application, on a unilateral basis, by a group of healthcare providers to EC officials of scales of fees for medical and hospital maternity care which are higher than those applicable to persons affiliated to the national social security scheme, first, constitute discrimination on the ground of nationality, and, second, is it contrary to Articles 12(1) EC, 39 EC, 81(1) EC and/or the provisions of Regulations 1612/68 and 1408/71?
Do the rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Brussels Convention apply where the defendant has its domicile or seat in a Contracting State, even if the plaintiff is domiciled in a non-member country?
Do the rules on jurisdiction specific to matters relating to insurance set out in Article 7 et seq. of the Brussels Convention apply to matters relating to reinsurance?
In accordance with Regulation 2950/83, must the decision of the competent authorities of a MS not to certify the accuracy of the facts and accounts concerning a part of the expenditure in respect of a training operation to which the ESF has contributed, on the ground that it cannot be justified or is disproportionate, be deemed to be a decision as to the ineligibility of the expenditure?
Where the competent authorities of a MS decide to reduce or withdraw the national contribution following a decision not to certify the accuracy of the facts and accounts concerning certain expenditure, does that decision entail a corresponding proportional reduction or, as the case may be, the withdrawal of Community assistance and does the Commissions Decision 83/516/EEC to suspend or reduce Community assistance extend to the national contribution?
Must the relevant MSs certification of the accuracy of the facts and accounts in final payment claims, for the purposes of Article 5(4) of Regulation 2950/83, be understood as including an assessment as to whether the expenditure incurred is appropriate and can be justified?
Does Community law preclude the competent authorities of a MS from requiring, as a protective measure, repayment of the national contribution and of the assistance from the ESF before the adoption by the Commission of its final decision?
Does certification, for the purposes of the second sentence of Article 5(4) of Regulation 2950/83 of the accuracy of the facts and accounts in the final payment claim  prohibit a MS from carrying out a subsequent reassessment of the final payment claim?
Must the words "a loss of tax" in Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 77/799/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the loss of tax in question must be covered by an express measure on the part of the competent authority of another Member State?
How should the word "abnormaal" in the Dutch version of that provision be interpreted in that connection?
If Article 4(1)(a) is not applicable, can Article 4(3) of Directive 77/799 give rise to an obligation to exchange information spontaneously?
Does the EC Treaty preclude national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which require prefectural authorisation to be obtained for the purchase of property situated in an area of the national territory designated as being of military importance unless the purchaser is a public or private person of with the nationality of the Member State in question?
Must Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the proprietor of the mark may prevent a third party from using the sign if the distinctive character of the mark is such that the possibility of the association made by the public between the sign and the mark giving rise to confusion cannot be ruled out?
Is Regulation 1964/82 and in particular Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that trimmings of less than 100 grams, when rolled up inside a cut of plate and flank from fresh or chilled hindquarters of adult male cattle, which rolled-up cut is then wrapped, qualify for special export refunds pursuant to the said regulation?
Is Regulation 1964/82 and in particular Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that trimmings/detached pieces of meat of greater than 100 grams when rolled up inside a cut of plate or flank from fresh or chilled hindquarter of adult male cattle, which rolled-up cut is then wrapped, do or do not qualify for special export refunds pursuant to the said regulation?
Is Regulation 2675/88 and in particular Article 4(4) thereof, to be construed as permitting the storage of trimmings of less than 100 grams resulting from the cutting and deboning for the purpose of obtaining private storage aid under contracts entered into pursuant to the said regulation?
Where the competent authority establishes that a carton of meat subject to the scheme covered by Regulation 1964/82 contains items prohibited by the legislation, do Regulations 565/80 and 3665/87 permit it to hold that the entire contents of the carton do not qualify for special export refunds and to forfeit the security given for the advance payment made in respect of that carton plus 20%?
On a proper construction of Regulations 2675/88 and 2220/85, where the competent authority establishes that a carton of meat contains items prohibited by Article 4(4) thereof, those regulations permit it to hold that the entire contents of the carton do not qualify for private storage aid and to forfeit the security given for the advance payment made in respect of that carton plus 20%?
Where checks relating to cartons of meat reveal evidence in particular production plants of a deliberate and persistent policy of infringement of Regulations 1964/82 and 2675/88, may the competent authority extrapolate the results of those checks across the production of the production plants in question?
May an ad valorem charge on exported tobacco products, which is not imposed on the same products when they are distributed in the domestic market or imported from another MS, because of its social objective, escape classification as a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on exports which is incompatible with Articles 23 EC and 25 EC?
Does Community law allow a MS to refuse to refund charges levied in breach of Community law when it has been established that the refund would involve unjust enrichment? How may proof of unjust enrichment be established?
Is a national court required, in civil proceedings between individuals concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of postponement of adoption prescribed by Article 9 of Directive 83/189?
Are uniform Community criteria to be applied in order to determine whether a frontier worker is to be regarded as partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71?
What criteria can be applied in order to determine, under Community law, whether a worker is partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71?
Is a person in  circumstances of this case to be regarded as a frontier worker who is partially unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation or as a frontier worker who is wholly unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1)(a)(ii) thereof?
Does the expression "activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities" in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive cover the letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles (both on streets and in car parks) by the public authorities?
May the significant distortions of competition referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive be defined case by case by the Minister of Finance of a Member State?
Will the public authorities always be regarded as taxable persons where the activities in which they engage are not negligible, or are they taxable persons only as regards the activities or transactions listed in Annex D, to which the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive refers?
May a national law authorise the Minister of Finance to define, case by case, what activities are being engaged in on a negligible scale?
Must the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that the absence of an exemption for the letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles, which follows from Article 13B(b) of that directive, prohibits the Member States from treating that activity, when engaged in by a body governed by public law, as one engaged in by that body as a public authority?
May a national court decide of its own motion to refer a question of interpretation of the Sixth Directive to the Court and after having done so, must it draw the consequences of the Courts decision in the main proceedings?
On a proper construction of Articles 3(1)(a) EC and 28 EC et seq., must the national rules, which prohibit the manufacture and marketing in that member state of a cheese without rind under the designation "Emmenthal", be regarded as constituting a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect on intra-Community trade?
Does Community law require that provision be made to allow adjustment of an improperly invoiced tax as part of the procedure for determining the tax or is it sufficient for the Member States to permit adjustment only in a later procedure for determining whether payment of the tax is equitable?
Must the issuer of an invoice have acted in good faith in order to obtain adjustment of VAT which has been improperly invoiced?
Are Directive 92/12/EEC, Directive 92/83/EEC and Directive 77/388/EEC and the Customs Code (Regulation 2913/92) to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions concerning tax liability and customs debts apply to the smuggling of ethyl alcohol?
Does Community law preclude national legislation which makes the validity of an agency contract subject to entry of the commercial agent in an appropriate register and which provides that an agency contract concluded by a person not entered on that register is void?
Is Regulation 1638/94 valid in so far as it classifies under heading No 8517 of the CN the goods respectively described at items 1, 2 and 3 of the Annex to the said Regulation?
Is Regulation 1165/95 valid in so far as it classifies under heading No 8517 of the CN the goods described at item 4 of the Annex to the said Regulation?
Is the Combined Nomenclature of Regulation 2658/87 to be interpreted as requiring that the goods at issue in the main proceedings are to be classified under tariff heading 8471 either post 1 January 1996, or between 28 April 1993 and 31 December 1995, or for both periods of time?
Is the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as requiring that such goods be classified, ante 1 January 1996, under tariff heading 8517 or, post 1 January 1996, under tariff heading 8517?
Does Article 73b of the Treaty preclude the application of rules of a Member State requiring a mortgage securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member State to be registered in the national currency?
Was Article 73b of the Treaty applicable in Austria even before that State acceded to the European Union?
Do Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty  preclude any national rules which include a general prohibition on the industrial use of trichloroethylene and establish a system of individual exemptions?
May a MS take interim protective measures in accordance with Article 9(1) of Directive 89/662/EEC when the Commission has made Decision 97/534/EC under Article 9(4) of the said Directive but postponed the coming into effect of that Decision?
On the correct interpretation of Article 4(1) of Commission Decision 97/534/EC: Must specified risk material be removed and stained at the point of production; and is the point of production for those purposes the place at which the animals are slaughtered?
If the answer to Question 1 is No: May a MS none the less justify under Article 30 EC on the grounds of the protection of human health measures including a prohibition on the importation from another MS of specified risk material within the meaning of the said Decision or bovine heads containing such specified risk material?
Can a difference in situation between seconded personnel and Community officials justify a situation in which, in the light of the principles laid down in the articles cited above and although the Regulations for Members of the Seconded Staff of the European Schools expressly refer to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, the exchange rates applied in order to maintain an equivalent purchasing power are not the same?’
Must Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 1999/44/EC be interpreted as meaning that, where consumer goods not in conformity with the contract which were installed in good faith by the consumer in a manner consistent with their nature and purpose, before the defect became apparent, are restored to conformity by way of replacement, the seller is obliged either to remove the goods from where they were installed and to install the replacement goods there or else to bear the cost of that removal and installation of the replacement goods, regardless of whether he was obliged under the contract of sale to install the consumer goods originally purchased?
Must Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44 be interpreted as precluding national legislation from granting the seller the right to refuse to replace goods not in conformity, on the ground that, because of the obligation to remove the goods from where they were installed and to install the replacement goods there, replacement imposes costs on him which are disproportionate with regard to the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity and the significance of the lack of conformity?
Must Article 25(2) of the Universal Service Directive (2002/22) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which places undertakings assigning telephone numbers to end-users under an obligation to make available, to undertakings whose activity consists in providing publicly available directory enquiry services and directories, data in their possession relating to subscribers of third-party undertakings?
Does Article 12 of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications (2002/58) make the passing on, to an undertaking whose activity consists in providing publicly available directory enquiry services and directories, by an undertaking which assigns telephone numbers, of data in its possession relating to subscribers of a third-party undertaking conditional on the consent of that undertaking or its subscribers?
Must Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71 and of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, be interpreted as meaning that the ‘mobility component’ of the UKs Disability Living Allowance constitutes a special non-contributory cash benefit within the meaning of that provision?
Do any principles of EU Law preclude an affirmative answer to Issue 1 ?
Do Article 11(4) of the Second Directive and Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude tax legislation of a Member State from excluding from deduction VAT which relates to categories of expenditure concerning, on the one hand, the provision of private transport, food, drink, accommodation and opportunities for recreation to the members of staff of a taxable person and, on the other hand, the provision of ‘business gifts’ or other gifts ?
Do Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive preclude national legislation, adopted before that directive entered into force, under which a taxable person may deduct VAT paid on the acquisition of goods and services relating to one of the categories private transport, food, drink, accommodation, opportunities for recreation, business gifts and other gifts, which are used partly for private purposes and partly for professional purposes not in full but only in proportion to their use for professional purposes?
Does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude an amendment by a Member State, after the entry into force of that directive, to an existing exclusion from the right of deduction, designed in principle to restrict the scope of that exclusion but in respect of which it cannot be ruled out that, in an individual case in a particular tax year, the scope of that exclusion might be extended by reason of the flat-rate nature of the amended scheme?
Is the supply or refusal to supply the information provided for in point 12 of Annex XVI to Regulation No 2216/2004 the responsibility of the Central Administrator alone or the responsibility also of the administrator of the national registry?
Does a request for the reporting of trading data, relating to the names of holders of the transferring accounts and acquiring accounts of emission allowances, allowances or Kyoto units involved in those transactions and the date and time of those transactions, fall within the definition of ‘environmental data’ in the Aarhus Convention, or does it come exclusively under the specific rules governing public reporting and confidentiality contained in Directive 2003/87 and in Regulation No 2216/2004 ?
Should the trading data concerning each completed transaction referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Annex XVI to Regulation no 2216/2004 be published after a five-year period has elapsed following completion of the transaction in question or should information relating to all of the transactions effected during the course of a five-year allowance period for the purposes of Directive 2003/87 should be published at the end of that five-year period ?
When considering possible abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU by a vertically integrated undertaking holding a dominant position on the wholesale market in asymmetric digital subscriber line input services, are the following factors relevant: the difference in pricing to end-users compared to competitors, that the product is indispensable to competitors, that an anti-competitive effect can be established ?
When considering possible abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU by a vertically integrated undertaking holding a dominant position on the wholesale market in asymmetric digital subscriber line input services, are the following factors relevant: that the dominant undertaking is regulated as such, the degree of market strength, dominance on both retail and whole-sale markets, the difference in treatment of new and old costumers, the possibility to recoup costs of establishing a dominant position, that the abuse concerns new technology ?
Can an authority where the Board Members are to a significant portion also members of a second authority that is frequently a party to proceedings held by the first authority be considered a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU?
For the purposes of Directive 89/552, can a licenced broadcaster in Member State A turn over the editorial responsibility to a broadcaster in Member State B if the two broadcasters are joined by a commercial agreement and the two States are joined by a protocol of mutual recognition of broadcasting licences ?
Since the expression ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’, used in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, covers both where the harm occurs and where the action causing the harm occurs, which jurisdiction should try a case of alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content published online on an internet website, if the publisher and the victim reside in different Member States ?
Do the provisions of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31 have the character of a conflict-of-laws rule in the sense that, for the field of private law, they also require the exclusive application, for information society services, of the law in force in the country of origin, to the exclusion of national conflict-of-laws rules, or do they operate as a corrective to the law declared to be applicable pursuant to the national conflict-of-laws rules in order to adjust it in accordance with the requirements of the country of origin?
Is a short-term incapacity benefit in youth, granted by National law to a person with a permanent handicap, for the purposes of Regulation No 1408/71, a sickness benefit or an invalidity benefit ?
For the purposes of the dispositions regarding sickness benefits in Regulation No 1408/71, what defines an “employed person” and a “pensioner”? Do such persons have to be employed or receive a pension having reached the applicable retirement age ?
Is the application of a condition of national social security law limiting the initial acquisition of entitlement to a sickness benefit or a short-term incapacity benefit to those having completed a requisite period of past presence within the competent Member State within a defined prior period compatible with the provisions of Articles 10, 19 and/or 28 of Regulation No 1408/71, and Article 21 of TFEU?
Is Article 239 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State takes the view that the European Commission cannot be criticised for having committed any irregularity and none of the other circumstances contemplated in Article 905(1) of the implementing regulation obtains, that same Member State may decide independently on an application for repayment to the debtor within the meaning of Article 899(2) of the implementing regulation?
May the expression “special situation” used in Article 905(1) of the implementing regulation with reference to Article 239 of the Customs Code refer to the exclusion of a Community importer from a tariff quota whose opening date falls on a Sunday because of the Sunday closing of the customs offices of the Member State in question, while the customs offices in other Member States are open on Sunday?
Are Articles 308a to 308c of the implementing regulation and the relevant provisions of the Administrative Arrangement on the management of tariff quotas to be interpreted as meaning that, a Member State should ask the Commission beforehand to suspend a tariff quota in order to enable National importers to receive fair and non-discriminatory treatment in comparison with importers from other Member States?
Must Articles 308a to 308c of the implementing regulation and the relevant provisions of the Administrative Arrangement be interpreted as precluding the Commission from being able to adopt a decision which excludes an operator from a tariff quota by reason of the fact that that quota was exhausted on the day on which it was opened, namely a Sunday, a day on which the customs offices of the Member State in which the operator in question is established are closed?
Does point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 apply to rail transport ?
In situations in which the breach of Directive 91/628 has not resulted in the death of the animals, are courts generally under an obligation to examine whether the competent authority of the Member State applied Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality?’
Does Articles 2(5) and 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 allow for Member States to let the Social Partners agree on an age limit, within a Collective Agreement for a certain profession, that is lower than the age limit in National legislation or in other National Collective Agreements regulating the same profession?
Is “air traffic safety” a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 6 of Directive 2000/78?
Do the dispositions of Regulations No 1383/2003, 3295/94, and Directives 98/71, 89/104,  mean that imitations of goods protected in the European Union by a trade mark right can be classified as counterfeit goods or pirated goods merely on the basis of the fact that they are brought into the customs territory of the European Union, without being released for free circulation there ?
Directive 2008/7, Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e), must they be understood as precluding the charging of an annual duty, paid to chambers of commerce by all undertakings registered or noted in the register kept by those chambers, even if those undertakings do not have any economic activities ?
Does the concept of GMO within the meaning of Article 2.5 of Regulation No 1829/2003 include a substance such as pollen derived from a genetically modified variety of maize that has lost all specific and individual capability to reproduce, even though it still contains genetically modified material?
Does the concept produced from GMOs within the meaning of Article 2.10 of Regulation No 1829/2003 include a substance such as pollen derived from a genetically modified materials that have lost all capability to reproduce, even if the materials were added to the product unintentionally by the producer ?
Do Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Regulation No 1829/2003 mean that, when they imply an obligation of authorisation and supervision of a foodstuff, a tolerance threshold such as that provided for in Article 12(2) of that regulation may be applied by analogy to that obligation?
Does Article 45(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 mean that, in the determination of the minimum insurance period required under national law for the acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension by a migrant worker, the competent institution of the Member State concerned must take into consideration, for the purposes of determining the limit which non-contribution periods may not exceed in relation to contribution periods, as provided for under that Member States legislation, only the contribution periods completed in that Member State or all insurance periods completed in the course of the migrant workers career, including those completed in other Member States?
Taking into consideration Articles 18(1)(a) and 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, does a taxable person have the right of deduction in respect of VAT paid on services supplied by another taxable person who is not registered for VAT purposes, as long as this is done in good faith?
Does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude national legislation which excludes the right of deduction where services have been supplied by a taxable person who is not registered for VAT purposes?
Does a decision of the organisations representing employers and employees within a given sector of activities to appoint a body to manage a scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs and to request the public authorities to make affiliation to that scheme compulsory for all employees in that sector is liable to come within the concept of an agreement between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices as prohibited under Article 101 TFEU ?
Do Articles 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU preclude public authorities from granting a provident society an exclusive right to manage a compulsory additional health insurance scheme, without any possibility for undertakings within the occupational sector concerned to be exempted from affiliation to that scheme ?
Does Directive 93/83 require or forbid that a satellite package provider must obtain authorisation from the right holders concerned for a communication to the public of works that is effected in the course of the direct or indirect transmission of television programmes ?
For the purposes of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1768/92) is the "first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community" the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community which was issued in accordance with Directive 65/65 or will any authorisation that enables the product to be placed on the market in the Community or EEA suffice?
If for the purposes of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1768/92, the “first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community” is the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community which was issued in accordance with Directive 65/65 is an authorisation that was granted in 1963 in Austria in accordance with the national legislation in force at that time which did not comply with the requirements of Directive 65/65  and that was never amended to comply with that directive and was ultimately withdrawn in 2001, to be treated as an authorisation granted in accordance with that directive?
Should the concept of "optional price supplements", referred to in the last sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008, be interpreted as meaning that it covers costs, connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as the travel cancellation insurance at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the company selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price?
Does Article 18(4) of Regulation 1013/2006 also apply to persons involved in the transfer?
If Article 18(4) of Regulation 1013/2006 does not apply to persons participating in the transfer, does EU Primary Law restrict the scope of article 18(1) of the same Regulation due to the right to protection of business secrets?
Should Article 13(2)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as precluding a legislative measure of a Member State A from excluding from affiliation to the social security scheme of that Member State A a person who holds that Member States A nationality but does not reside in it and is employed on board a dredger flying the flag of that Member State A but operating outside European Union territory?
Should Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a person who, under successive employment contracts stating the place of employment to be the territory of several Member States, in fact works during the term of each of those contracts only on the territory of one of those States at a time, can fall within the concept of "a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States", within the meaning of that provision, and if, in the event of that question being answered in the affirmative, the situation of such a person falls within Article 14 (2)(b)(i) or (ii)?
Should the notion of "closure of insolvency proceedings" in the sense of article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000 be interpreted as an autonomous concept?
Is it possible for the national court seized of an application to open secondary insolvency proceedings to assess the insolvency of the debtor in the light of article 27 of Regulation n°1346/2000?
Does Article 27 of Regulation n°1346/2000 allow for the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings in the Member State in which all of the debtors assets are situated, where the main proceedings have a protective purpose?
Does the notion of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 includes circumstances such as the closure of the European Airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland, which caused widespread and prolonged disruption to air travel?
If the closure of airspace as the result of eruption of a volcano goes beyond the notion "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, is the liability for the duty for the carrier to provide care excluded or restricted by temporal and monetary limits under Articles 5 and 9 of that same Regulation?
What is the impact of a policy in the implementation of Member State A social insurance whereby the Social Insurance Fund invokes Community law to treat seafarers as insured persons in a case like this?
If liability for the duty to provide care is not excluded in circumstances such as the circumtances of the case, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an "equitable balance of interests" enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
If liability for the duty to provide care is not limited by temporal and/or monetary criteria in circumstances such as the circumtances of the case, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an "equitable balance of interests" enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
If Article 18(4) applies to persons participating in the transfer, does Article 18(4) of  Regulation 1013/2006 limit the obligation under Article 18(1) of the Regulation on the persons arranging the shipment to inform the receiver of the waste of the identity of the producer or collector of the waste by means of the document set out in Annex VII in order to protect business secrets?
If Article 18(4) of Regulation 1013/2006 limits the obligation under Article 18(1) of the Regulation: is the degree of limitation tied to a case-by-case balancing of interests (commercial interests involved on the one hand and environmental protection on the other)?
Does a final decision on the continued operation of an authorised or already operating landfill taken under Article 14(b) of Directive 1999/31 constitute an authorisation within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337?
Do Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU require that an acquiring company may, in its taxation, deduct losses arising from an activity carried on in another Member State by the acquired company, which was established there, during the years preceding the merger if the acquiring company does not have a fixed establishment in the State in which the acquired company is resident and national rules allow an acquiring company to deduct the losses of an acquired company if the latter is a national company or if the losses arose in a fixed establishment situated in the national territory?
Do Articles 49 and 50 have any bearing on whether the amount of the allowable loss must be calculated in accordance with the tax law of the State of residence of the acquiring company or whether the losses incurred by the acquired company in its State of residence must be regarded as allowable losses and determined in accordance with the law of that State?
Is Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and work applicable to national provisions on sickness benefit for public servants?
Is a person who can rely on the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of a computer program a "lawful acquirer" within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24?
If a person who can rely on the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of a computer program can be considered as a "lawful acquirer", is the right to distribute a copy of a computer program exhausted within the meaning of the first limb of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 where the acquirer has made the copy, with the authorisation of the rightholder, by downloading the program onto a computer medium from the internet?
Can the second "lawful acquirer" of a computer program rely on the exhaustion of the right of distribution to reproduce this same computer program when the first lawful acquierer has deleted his own copy or does not use it anymore in the light of article 5§1 and article 4 of the directive No 2009/24?
Does Article 3 of Regulation 469/2009 (the SPC Regulation) precludes the grant of a supplementary protection certificate based on a second marketing authorization for a different product compromising the same active ingredient where the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent do not extent to placing the product the subject of the earlier MA on the market within the meaning of Article 4?
According to Article 13 (1) of Regulation 469/2009, if the grant is not precluded does it follow that "the first authorization to place the product on the market in the community" needs to be an authorization to place a medicinal product on the market within the meaning of Article 4?
Are the answers to the above questions different:  if the earlier marketing authorisation has been granted for a veterinary medicinal product for a particular indication and the later marketing authorisation has been granted for a medicinal product for human use for a different indication, or if the later marketing authorisation required a full application for marketing approval in accordance with Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC, or if the authorisation to place the corresponding medicinal product on the market is within the scope of protection of a different patent which belongs to a different registered proprietor from the SPC applicant?
Does Directive 92/12 allow national laws for assessment and rate of excise duty levied on the introduction of used motor vehicles into the territory of a Member State, although excise duty is not payable on the second-hand purchase of such vehicles which are already in that country and on which excise duty has been paid on first introduction into the territory of that country?
Shall Article 90 of the EC Treaty and Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that used vehicles imported into a Member State must be considered as similar products to used vehicles which were imported into that State as new vehicles independently of their origin, since there is no domestic automobile manufacture in that same Member State?
Do Articles 25 and 90 of the EC Treaty as well as Articles 30 and 110 TFEU preclude a Member State from applying differing rules on the levying of excise duty on motor vehicles where that excise duty is levied differently on used vehicles imported from other Member States and used vehicles already registered in that State which were imported into that State as new vehicles?
Does Article 3§4 of Regulation No 1443/82 also apply to the sugar surplus found by national authorities of a Member State during an a posteriori investigation carried out at a producers premises?
Do the dispatch of a kit for collecting blood from the umbilical cord of new-born children, the testing and processing of that blood and, the storage of stem cells contained in it for possible future therapeutic use fall within the scope of ‘closely related’ to ‘hospital and medical care’ as found in Article 132(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112?
Is the jurisdiction provided for in Article 5 (3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters also established where the potential injuring party brings an action for a negative declaration seeking a declaration that the potential injured party has no claim based on a tort or delict?
If the Commission decides not to oppose a National law, such as it did not do in D/15975, that introduces two aid schemes which are incompatible due to their different time constraints, should one conclude that the Commission does not allow for the two schemes to be combined?
Does Commission Decision 2003/195 mean that all increases of State aid after the entry into force of the EC Treaty is to be considered “new aid”?
Which party to the proceedings has the burden of proving that the budgetary provision allocated for aid measures authorised by Commission Decision has not been exhausted?
In the event of delay in payment of aid, which amount of statutory interest may be due to be included in the amount of the budgetary provision authorised by D/15975?
Is Decision 2003/195 compatible with the Commission’s interpretation of Article 87 EC in determining cases relating to the exemptions from the costs of social-security contributions on training and work-experience contracts in Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 and 2003/739/EC of 13 May 2003?
Does Article 13(A)(1)(g) and/or (2)(a) of the Sixth Directive permit the national legislature to make the exemption of out-patient care services for those who are sick or in need of care dependent on the fact that, in the case of such organisations, “the medical and pharmaceutical costs have been borne in at least two thirds of cases wholly or mainly by the statutory social security or social welfare authorities in the preceding calendar year”?
In the light of the principle of the neutrality of VAT, is it relevant to the answer to that question that the national legislature treats the same services as exempt under different conditions where they are carried out by officially recognised voluntary welfare associations, and corporations, associations of persons and funds serving purposes of voluntary welfare which are affiliated as members of a welfare association?
Must Article 7 of Directive 96/9 be interpreted as meaning that the sending by one person, by means of a web server located in Member State A, of data previously uploaded by that person from a database protected by the sui generis right under that directive to the computer of another person located in Member State B, at that person’s request, for the purpose of storage in that computer’s memory and display on its screen, constitutes an act of ‘extraction’ or ‘re-utilisation’ of the data by the person sending it?
Does the act in Issue 1 have to be regarded as taking place in Member State A, in Member State B, or in both those States?
Do Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1612/68 preclude clauses in collective and individual agreements under which a top-up amount must be calculated in such a way that the tax on wages payable by the worker in the Member State of employment is notionally deducted when establishing the basis for the calculation of that top-up amount, even though, under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation, the pay, salaries and analogous remuneration paid to workers who do not reside in the Member State of employment are taxable in their Member State of residence?
Does Article 28 EC apply to standardisation and certification activities of a private-law body, where the national legislation considers the products certified by that body to be compliant with national law and that has the effect of restricting the marketing of products which are not certified by that body?
According to Article 81 EC, is the activity pursued by a private-law body in the field of drawing up technical standards and certifying products on the basis of those technical standards to be regarded as “economic” where the body is controlled by those undertakings?
According to Regulation No 1206/2001, must a competent court of a Member State, which wishes to hear as a witness a party residing in another Member State, always use the means of taking evidence laid down by that regulation, or to the contrary, may that court summon that party to appear before it and hear him in accordance with the law of its Member State?
Should the combined provisions of Article 8(2) and Annex II, Part II of Regulation No 1371/2007 be interpreted as meaning that the information on the main connections must also indicate, in addition to the normal departure times, the delays or cancellations of those connections?
If yes, should Article 8§2 and Annex II part II of Regulation No 1371/2007 read in conjunction with Article 5 and Annex II of Directive No 2001/14 be interpreted as meaning that the infrastructure manager must provide in a non-discriminatory manner to railway companies the real-time data of trains of other railway companies when these trains are the main connections within the meaning of Annex II, Part II of Regulation No 1371/2007?
For the purposes of Articles 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71 and, more particularly, for the purposes of Article 14c, may a Member State, in the context of the competence conferred on it to define the conditions of liability to the social security scheme which it establishes for self-employed persons, treat the "management from abroad of a company subject to the tax of that State" as the carrying on of an activity in its territory?
Is a national provision of a Member State A, which does not allow a person residing in another Member State B and managing from abroad a company subject to tax in Member State A, to reverse the presumption of being subject to the social status of self-employed persons, compatible with European Union law, and in particular with the freedom of movement and residence guaranteed by Article 21 TFEU, when an agent who resides in Member State A and does not manage such a company from abroad is able to rebut that presumption and prove that he is not self-employed?
Is Article 102 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the activity of a public authority to store in a database data which undertakings are obliged to disclose on the basis of legal obligations and to allow access to and/or print-outs of that data in return for payment, while nevertheless prohibiting any other use of that data, is a commercial activity?
Is it a commercial activity when the public authority avails itself of the sui generis protection granted to it as creator of a database and prohibits any use beyond the mere consultation and printing of the data?
Is Article 102 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the principles laid down in the judgments of the Court of Justice in TEN and ITP v Commission (C-241/91 and C-242/91) and in IMS Health (C-4I8/01) also apply in the absence of an "upstream step", on the ground that the protected data are collected and stored in a database in the exercise of a public authority?
Does Article 63 TFEU preclude rules of a Member State under which, in a system limiting double taxation, where persons subject to unlimited tax liability pay on foreign income, in the State where that income originates, a tax equivalent to the income tax levied by the said Member State, the foreign tax is offset against income tax levied in that Member State by multiplying the amount of tax due in respect of taxable income in the same Member State, by the proportion that that foreign income bears to total income, the latter not taking into account special expenditure or extraordinary costs.
Do Articles 313(1) and 314 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Articles 136 and 315 of that directive, mean that a taxable dealer is eligible for the application of the margin scheme where it supplies motor vehicles considered to be second-hand goods, within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive, which it has previously acquired exempt from VAT from another taxable person which had only a right to partial deduction of input VAT paid on the purchase price of those vehicles.
Does Directive 2004/18 preclude national legislation which permits the conclusion, without an invitation to tender, of a contract by which two public entities set up between them a form of cooperation where one part pays the other a sum not exceeding the costs incurred in the performance of the service?
Does the term ‘specified criteria’ in Article 1(1)(f) of Regulation No 1400/2002 require, in order to benefit from the exemption, a quantitative selective distribution system, within the meaning of the Regulation, to be based on criteria which are objectively justified and applied in a uniform and non-differentiated manner in respect of all applicants for authorisation?
In the light of the Courts case-law (C-161/06 (Skoma-Lux), C-560/07 (Balbiino) and C-140/08 (Rakvere Lihakombinaat) ), should Article 288 TFEU in conjunction with Article 58 of the 2003 Act of Accession be interpreted as meaning that an individual can be required to fulfil the obligation arising from Regulation No 1972/2003 notwithstanding the fact that, as of 1 May 2004, these provisions ad neither been published in the language of the Member State in the Official Journal of the European Union nor reproduced in the national law of that Member State even though the private individual fulfilled one of the obligations arising from the regulation and was taxed by the competent authority of the Member State at a time when Regulation No 1972/2003 had already been published in the language of the Member State  in the Official Journal of the European Union?
Do Articles 2(2) and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 preclude national legislation providing that different treatment on the ground of age may be lawful if, in the framework of an occupational social security scheme, the management and the works council have excluded from social plan benefits workers who are financially secure because they are entitled to a pension, after drawing unemployment benefit where applicable?
Do Articles 2(2) and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 preclude rules of an occupational social security scheme under which, in the case of workers older than 54 years of age who are made redundant on operational grounds, a calculation is to be made of the compensation on the basis of the earliest possible date on which their pension will begin with the result that the compensation paid to those workers is lower than the compensation resulting from the application of that standard method, though still at least one half of the standard amount?
Do Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78 preclude rules of an occupational social security scheme under which, in the case of workers older than 54 years of age who are made redundant on operational grounds, the compensation to which they are entitled is calculated on the basis of the earliest possible date on which their pension will begin with the result that the compensation paid is lower than the standard formula compensation, although still at least one half thereof, and that alternative calculation method takes account of the possibility of receiving an early retirement pension on the ground of disability?
Do the general principles of EU law on public procurement and Article 24 para 2 of Directive 93/37 preclude national legislation which imposes on a contractor established in another Member State an obligation to hold a registration in the contracting authority’s Member State to be awarded a contract in the latter Member State, notwithstanding the fact that the contractor has produced certificates issued by the authorities of its Member State of establishment which attest that it has fulfilled its obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions and taxes in that State?
Do the general principles of EU law on public procurement and Article 24 para 2 of Directive 93/37 preclude national legislation which provides that an authority other than the contracting one – in the present case the registration committee – check the validity of certificates issued by the tax and social security authorities of other Member States attesting that contractors established in those Member States have fulfilled their obligations in the areas concerned?
In the circumstances where an individual 	is a citizen of a Member State A, came to a Member State B before her or his country acceded to the EU remained in the second Member State following accession of her/his country to the EU, thereafter established her or himself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU is no longer in self-employment; and is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she/he was established in self-employment, does the claimant have a right to reside in the Member State B on the basis that Regulation No 1612/68 applies, together with the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-413/99), London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim (C-310/08) and Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth (C-480/08)?
Is Article 30(2) of the Universal Service Directive to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive?
Does clause 4 and 5 of the framework agreement concluded between the general cross-industry organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP), preclude national legislation which completely prohibits periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship?
Does Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38, read in the light in particular of Article 47 of the Charter, require a national court hearing an appeal of a Union citizen against a decision refusing entry taken under Article 27(1) of that Directive to ensure that the public security grounds which constitute the basis of that decision is disclosed to the person concerned where the competent national authority contends before that court that such disclosure is contrary to the interests of State security?
Does Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive, read in conjunction with Article 11(A)(1)(b) of that directive, mean that the application by a taxable person, for the purposes of an economic activity exempt from VAT, of sports pitches which he owns and which he has had transformed by a third person, can be subject to VAT calculated on the basis of the aggregate arrived at by adding to the transformation costs the value of the ground on which the pitches lie?
Is an object which is intended by the manufacturer to be used on humans for the purpose of studying a physiological process to be regarded as a medical device within the meaning of the third indent of Article I(2)(a) of Directive 93/42/EEC only if it is intended for a medical purpose?
Is Article 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as being limited to denied boarding resulting from overbooking situations created by an air carrier for economic reasons, or does the Regulation also apply to denied boarding for other reasons, such as operational reasons?
Is Article 2(j) of the Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the permissible grounds referred to therein are limited to factors relating to passengers, or may denied boarding be justified on other grounds?
If the Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may be validly justified on grounds other than those relating to passengers, is it to be understood that such denial may also be justified by a reorganisation of flights arising from extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of recitals 14 and 15 of the Regulation?
According to Regulation 54, can an air carrier be exempted from liability under Article 5(3) not only in respect of the flight which it has cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances, but also in respect of passengers on subsequent flights, when it attempts to share the inconvenience caused by the extraordinary circumstances with which it is confronted?
Is there a significant difference depending on whether the status of the passenger and the right to compensation is assessed under article 4 of the regulation, relating to denied boarding, or under article 5 of the regulation, relating to cancellation of a flight?
Does the concept of freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey also cover the freedom to provide passive services?
If yes, does the protection of the freedom to provide passive services under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol also extend to Turkish nationals who wish to enter the Federal Republic of Germany not in order to obtain a permanent service but in order to visit relatives for a period of not more than three months and who rely on the mere possibility of obtaining services in Germany?
Is Article 2(I)(c) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of services relating to the insurance of the leased object and the provision of services relating to the leasing itself are to be regarded as separate supplies of services or as a single supply of services comprising leasing?
If the provision of services relating to the insurance of the leased item and the provision of services relating to the leasing itself must be regarded as separate supplies of services, must Article 135(I)(a) in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2006/112 be interpreted as meaning that the provision of services relating to the insurance of the leased item is exempt from VAT where the lessor himself insures the item and charges the cost of that insurance to the lessee?
Does Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 mean that use of a Community trade mark within the borders of a single Member State can be sufficient to constitute genuine use of that trade mark, given that, had it been a national trade mark, such use would have been regarded as genuine use in that Member State ?
Do Articles 23(3) and (4) of Directive 2005/85 preclude a Member State from examining by way of an accelerated or prioritised procedure certain categories of asylum applications defined on the basis of the criterion of nationality or of the country of origin of the applicant?
Does Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 preclude national legislation in asylum matters such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a system relating to the procedures for granting refugee status which has various features of an administrative or organisational nature?
Is legislation of a Member State which permits the domestic advertising of casinos located abroad only where the legal provisions in those foreign locations for the protection of gamblers correspond to the domestic provisions compatible with the freedom to provide services provided by Article 56 TFEU?
Does Article 3(2)(b) of the SEA Directive (2001/42) mean that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment within the meaning of that directive depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under the Habitats Directive (92/43) being met in respect of that plan?
Are Articles 101(I) TFEU and  Article3(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 to be interpreted as precluding a practice of agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted action which is capable of affecting trade between Member States but which does not reach the thresholds set by the European Commission in its notice of minimis from being prosecuted and sanctioned by a national competition authority on the basis of both Article 101(I) TFEU and national competition law?
Is an alternative connection to the place of the event giving rise to the damage permissible for determining the place of realisation of the damage in the case of cross-border participation of several perpetrators in a tort or delict within the framework of jurisdiction ratione loci in tort or delict under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ?
How is the concept of "destruction of assets" within the meaning of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted and do the reasons for and/or the conditions under which the destruction was carried out matter for the purposes of adjusting the input VAT deducted on the acquisition of the asset?
Is the proven demolition of a companys assets for the sole purpose of creating new, more modern assets for the same purpose to be interpreted as a "change in the factors determining the amount to be deducted" within the meaning of Article 185(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC?
Should Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as allowing Member States to provide for adjustments in the event of the destruction of an asset where the acquisition of that asset has not given rise to payment or has given rise to partial payment?
According to  Directive 2003/9 , is a Member State to which an application for asylum has been made, also obliged to grant the minimum reception conditions for asylum seekers in respect of whom it decides, under Regulation No 343/2003, to call upon another Member State to take charge of or take back?
According to  Directive 2003/9, when does the obligation to grant the minimum reception conditions cease, with regard to an asylum seeker in respect of whom a Member State decides, under Regulation No 343/2003, to call upon another Member State to take charge of or take back, and who bears the financial burden?
Does Article 43 EC mean that the possibility of transferring, under the national legislation of a Member State, by means of group relief and to a resident company, losses sustained by the permanent establishment in that Member State of a non-resident company is subject to a condition that those losses cannot be used for the purposes of foreign taxation, and where the transfer of losses sustained in that Member State by a resident company is not subject to any equivalent condition, such provisions constitute a restriction on the freedom of a non-resident company to establish itself in another Member State?
Can a proportionate restriction on the freedom of a non-resident company to establish itself in another Member State be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest relating to the objective of preventing the double use of losses or the objective of preserving a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, or a combination of those two grounds?
If a national law on corporate taxation is found to go against the Treaty, what shall the Member State do?
Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude national legislation which grants the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance to a single entity inasmuch as, whilst the objective of the national legislation is either to restrict the supply of games of chance or to support the effort to combat criminality linked to games of chance, while the undertaking on which the right has been conferred pursues a commercial policy of expansion?
If the national legislation is incompatible with the Treaty, may the national authorities refrain from considering applications for permission to operate in the sector of games of chance, during a transitional period?
Must Article 15 of Regulation No 343/2003 be interpreted in such a way that a Member State which, at first sight, is not responsible for examining an asylum seekers application pursuant to Articles 6 to 14 of that Regulation, necessarily becomes so when the daughter-in-law of that person, who is seriously ill and in danger because of cultural circumstances, or his or her minor grandchildren, who need care because of their mothers illness, reside in that Member State and that person is willing and able to support his or her daughter-in-law or grandchildren, even if there is no such request from the Member State responsible?
Do Regulations No 1257/1999 and 817/2004 preclude national legislation which provides that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the aid already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years?
Is Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 to be interpreted in such a way that, in circumstances such as in this case, a transfer of responsibility to a Member State which is not prima facie responsible is necessary if the responsibility of the State designated by the provisions of Regulation No 343/2003 would constitute a breach of Article 3 or Article 8 of the ECHR (Article 4 or 7 of the EU Charter) ?
Do Article 1 of Directive 2003/6 and Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124 mean, in the case of a protracted process intended to bring about a particular circumstance or to generate a particular event, that not only may that future circumstance or future event be regarded as precise information within the meaning of those provisions, but also the intermediate steps of that process which already exist or have already occurred and which are connected with bringing about the future circumstance or event?
Does Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124 mean that the notion of “a set of circumstances which exists or may reasonably be expected to come into existence or an event which has occurred or may reasonably be expected to do so” refers only to circumstances or events the occurrence of which may be considered to be preponderant or highly probable, or whether that notion implies that the magnitude of the effect of that set of circumstances or that event on the prices of the financial instruments concerned must be taken into consideration?
In the circumstances of the case, and in case of incidental interpretation and application of article 3 or article 8 of the ECHR (article 4 or 7 of the Charter), can the notions of "inhuman treatment" or "family" be applied in a broader  sense than the one retained by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights?
According to Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU, is the Commission empowered to represent the EU before a national court in a civil action for damages in respect of loss caused to the EU by an agreement or practice prohibited by Articles 81 EC and 101 TFEU which may have affected certain public contracts awarded by various EU institutions and bodies, although it does not have authorisation from the other institutions or bodies concerned to represent them?
Does Article 47 of the Charter preclude the Commission from bringing an action, on behalf of the EU, before a national court for damages in respect of loss sustained by the EU as a result of an agreement or practice which has been found by a decision of the Commission to infringe Article 81 EC?
Is the exemption from import duties provided for in Article 112(I)(a) of Regulation No 918/83 and Article 107(I)(a) of Regulation No 1186/2009 to be interpreted as applying to motor vehicles such as locomotives?
Is the exemption from VAT provided for in Article 82(I)(a) of Directive 83/181 and in Article 84(I)(a) of Directive 2009/132 to be interpreted as applying to motor vehicles such as locomotives?
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, must that rule, as laid down in Article 82(I)(a) of Directive 83/181 and Article 84(I)(a) of Directive 2009/132, be interpreted as prohibiting a Member State from limiting the cases in which fuel is exempt from import VAT by providing that that exemption applies only to fuel imported into the territory of the European Union in the normal tanks of motor vehicles and necessary for the operation of those vehicles?
Must Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 be interpreted - having regard in particular to Article 2(a) and Article 3(3) of that regulation - as meaning that, on the basis of the bilateral agreements between Member States and neighbouring non-member countries referred to in Article 13 of that regulation, it permits multiple entries and exits and an uninterrupted stay of up to three months, so that, before the expiry of the three-month period of residence, a frontier worker with a local border-crossing permit may interrupt the uninterrupted stay and then, after crossing the border again, again have an uninterrupted right of residence for three months?
Can an uninterrupted stay within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No. I 931/2006 be considered interrupted if the entry and exit take place on the same day or on two consecutive days?
Can the provision authorising an uninterrupted stay of up to three months pursuant to article 5 of regulation No 1931/2006 be interpreted as meaning that the time spent during multiple exits and entries must be added together and that, having regard to article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985 - or any other rule concerning Schengen law - if the total number of days so counted reaches 93, the local border crossing permit must be considered as no longer conferring the right of residence for the period of six months from the date of first entry? If yes, what method of calculation should be used for this purpose?
Can the purchase, by a commercial company subject to VAT, of buildings intended for demolition and of the land on which they are built, made with a view to building a housing estate on that land, represent a preparatory activity in the form of an investment expenditure with a view to building the housing estate so that it gives rise to the right to deduct the VAT on the purchase of those buildings, in the light of articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112?
Does the demolition of buildings intended for destruction, purchased together with the land on which they were built, with a view to the creation of a housing estate on that land, entail the obligation to regularise the VAT relating to the purchase of those buildings, having regard to the provisions of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112?
What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, having "an adverse effect on the integrity of the site"?
Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent nonrenewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question?
What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?
In order to define the notion of "pharmacological action" within the meaning of  Article 1 (2) (b) of Directive 2001/83, is it possible to have recourse to the guidance document ?
Does Article 45 TFEU preclude legislation of a federated entity of a Member State which requires all employers whose established place of business is located in that entitys territory to draft cross-border employment contracts exclusively in the official language of that federated entity, failing which the contracts are to be declared null?
In order to characterize a "pharmacological action" within the meaning of Article 1 (2)(b) of Directive 2001/83 , is an interaction between the molecules of which it consists and a cellular constituent of the users body necessary or an interaction between that substance and any cellular constituent present within the users body may be sufficient?
If the answer to the first question is "no", or if neither of the two proposed definitions can be considered : What other definition should be used instead?
In relation to the period before 1 January 1978, does a taxable person have a directly effective right under Article 8(a) of Directive 67/228/EEC, and/or the principles of fiscal neutrality and of equal treatment, to treat the basis of assessment of a supply of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the time of that supply of goods, the recipient of the supply received a credit from the supplier which the recipient then elected either to take as a payment of money, or as a credit against amounts owed to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods to the recipient that had already taken place?
Can bilateral agreements between an insurance company and certain motor vehicle repairers or between an insurance company and an association of motor vehicle repairers under which the hourly repair rate paid to the repairer by the insurance company for the repair of vehicles insured by that company depends, among other factors, on the number and proportion of insurance contracts underwritten by that insurance company through the repairer acting as an insurance intermediary, be regarded as contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU?
In the light of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and Article 18 TFEU can a national law provide that judicial documents addressed to a party whose place of residence is in another Member State are placed in the case file, and deemed to have been effectively served, if that party has failed to appoint a representative who is authorised to accept service and is resident in the first Member State, in which the judicial proceedings are taking place?
Is Article 13B(g) in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a building on which the seller has carried out alterations for the purpose of constructing a new building (renovation) prior to the supply of the building, and which has been continued and completed by the purchaser after the supply of the building, is not exempted from VAT?
Is Article 15(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of "airlines engaged primarily in international traffic for remuneration" includes business aviation companies engaged primarily in international traffic for remuneration in the chartered sector, in order to meet the needs of businesses and private individuals?
Is Article 15(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for therein applies only to supplies of aircraft made directly to an airline which is essentially engaged in remunerated international air traffic, or does that exemption extend to the supply of aircraft to  an operator who is not himself principally engaged in international traffic for remuneration, but who makes the aircraft available to an operator engaged in such traffic?
Given that the airline may also have used the aircraft for other flights, does it matter if the owner of the aircraft passes on the charge for the use of the aircraft to an individual who is the owners shareholder and who uses the purchased aircraft primarily for his own commercial and/or private purposes?
Should polishing pads intended for a polishing machine imported separately from the machine, in the form of discs perforated in the centre, made up of a hard polyurethane layer, a layer of polyurethane foam, an adhesive layer and a protective plastic film, which do not contain any metal part or any abrasive substance and are used to polish "wafer"’, in combination with an abrasive liquid, and which must be replaced at a frequency determined by their level of wear, come under tariff subheading 8466 91 15 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 later on ameneded, as parts or accessories suitable for use with that machine, or, on the basis of their constituent material, under subheading 3919 90 10 of the CN, as self-adhesive flat shapes, other than squares or rectangles, made of plastic?
Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national tax rule under which, for the purpose of calculating its taxable profit, a company which is fully taxable in a Member State A may not apply a deduction for risk capital in respect of the positive difference between, on the one hand, the net book value of the assets of the establishments which it holds in another Member State B of the Union and, on the other hand, the total liabilities which are attributable to those establishments, whereas it may apply that deduction if that positive difference can be attributed to an establishment which is fully taxable in the Member State A?
Does Article 217 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 require States to include in their national legislation the modalities for entry in the accounts so that the debtor can check whether the customs authorities have actually carried out the said entry in the accounts or is it enough for the national legislation to refer to ?
Does Directive 97/7 preclude a national court from ordering a commercial practice to cease on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of whether the practice is unfair?
Do Articles 2, 4 and 8(1) and (2) of Directive 90/434 preclude a transfer of assets or an exchange of shares from giving rise to the taxation of the transferring company on the capital gain arising from that transfer, unless the transferring company carries over in its own balance sheet an appropriate reserve fund equivalent to the capital gain arising upon that transfer?
Does Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60 preclude a Member State’s national legislation which requires credit institutions carrying on their activities under the freedom to provide services in that Member State to communicate information required for the purpose of combating money laundering directly to the FIU of that Member State?
Must Article 217(2) of the Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, if national legislation merely provides that, for the purposes of that legislation, "entry in the accounts" means the entry in the accounting records or on any other medium serving as such of the amount of duty corresponding to a customs debt and that the rules governing the entry in the accounts and the conditions for payment of the amounts of duty resulting from a customs debt are laid down in the regulations of the European Communities the customs authorities may claim that the entry of the amount of duty on a 1552 B form, the entry of the amount of duty in a debt database and any other entry or input of the amount of duty by those authorities on any medium whatsoever, constitute entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code?
If the entry of the amount of duty on a 1552 B sheet by the customs authorities could constitute entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code, should Article 217 of that Code be interpreted as meaning that only the entry on the 1552 B sheet of the exact amount of duty resulting from a customs debt constitutes entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 217(1) of the Code?
Does Article 20 TFEU precludes a Member State to refuse to grant a residence permit to a third country national when some of his family members are EU citizen, even if the later are not financially dependant from the third-country national?
Do national provisions, which could have the effect of limiting, or even gradually rendering impossible, the running of gaming on low-prize machines anywhere other than in casinos and gaming arcades constitute ‘technical regulations’, within the meaning of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34, the drafts of which must be the subject of communication as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the directive?
Are the requirements to be met by an application for a European order for payment in Article 7 of Regulation No 1896/2006 exhaustive or only the minimum requirements for such an application, so that the provisions of national law are to be applied to the formal requirements for an application for all matters not governed by that provision?
Do Articles 4 and 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006 preclude a claimant from demanding, in an application for a European order for payment, interest for the period from the date on which interest falls due until the date of payment of the principal?
How and by whom is the European order for payment form, set out in Annex V to Regulation No 1896/2006, to be completed if the defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal?
If the application does not meet the formal requirements laid down in the law of the Member State, must a request for the claimant to complete the application be made pursuant to provisions of national law, in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation No 1896/2006, or pursuant to Article 9 thereof?
If the claimant does not calculate the interest claimed up until the day on which the application is submitted, must the court calculate that amount of its own motion, or must it then request the party concerned to complete the application pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 1896/2006?
Do Articles 44(2) and 47(1)(b) of Directive 2004/18 mean that a contracting authority may fix a minimum level of economic and financial standing with reference to a given item on the balance sheet, even if there may be differences as regards that item between the legislations of the various Member States and, as a result, in the balance sheets of companies, depending on the legislation to which they are subject as regards the preparation of their annual accounts?
Where an economic operator cannot meet a minimum level of economic and financial standing because of a difference between the legislations of the Member States in which it and the contracting authority respectively are established as regards the item in the balance sheet by reference to which that minimum capacity was defined, is it sufficient for that operator to rely on the capacities of another entity, in accordance with Article 47(2) of Directive 2004/18, or must it be allowed to prove its economic and financial standing by any other appropriate document, in accordance with Article 47(5)?
Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national law which provides a licensing scheme for the operation of branch pharmacies which is different for UHP than for private pharmacies?
Do Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 98/70 preclude national legislation requiring petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market in the same calendar year also to place on the market a quantity of biofuels calculated as a percentage of the total amount of those products which they market annually?
Does Article 8 of Directive 98/34 require notification of draft national legislation which obliges petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market also to place on the market certain percentages of biofuels in the same calendar year?
What is the meaning of the requirement laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337 and in the fifth paragraph of Article 15a of Directive 96/61 (implementing the Aarhus Convention) that judicial proceedings covered by those provisions should not be prohibitively expensive?
Must courts take account of the fact that the party liable to be ordered to pay the costs has not actually been deterred from bringing or pursuing its claim and to whether they are adjudicating at the conclusion of first-instance proceedings, an appeal or a second appeal?
Does the obligation of Member States to grant residence to a third-country national under Article 20 TFEU give rise to a right of residence deriving directly from Union law or is it sufficient for the Member State to grant the third-country national the right of residence in a constituent act?
If the right of residence exists under EU law, under what conditions does the right of residence under Union law exceptionally not exist or under what conditions can the third-country national be deprived of it?
If it is sufficient for the third-country national to be granted the right of residence in a constituent instrument, under what conditions can the right of residence be denied to a third-country national despite the Member States obligation in principle to allow residence?
Does Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 or Article 41 of the Protocol prevent, in a case such as this, the first entry of Turkish nationals from being subjected to stricter internal rules than those which previously governed the first entry of Turkish nationals, even though the latter, which had made the first entry regime more flexible, did not enter into force until after the above-mentioned provisions relating to association with Turkey had taken effect in the Member State?
Does the Directive 93/13/CEE allow a national court which has, of its own motion, found a contractual term to be unfair to inform the parties and invite them to express their views on the matter?
Should the Directive 93/13/CEE be interpreted as permitting the national court, or even requiring it, when examining an unfair contract term, to examine all the terms of the contract or on the contrary, it must limit its examination to the terms on which the action before it is based?
Do Bulgarian authorities have the right to independently recover State aid that does not comply with the requirements of Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement?
Is the provision in Article 1 of Title 2 of Annex V to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania relating to competition rules to be interpreted as meaning that State aid that was supposed to end before the accession of a certain Member State, but did not end, constitutes “new aid” within the meaning of Title 2 of that Annex?
Should Article 5(3) of Directive 2005/36 on rules of professional conduct be interpreted as meaning that national rules under which fees must be reasonable and, unless provided otherwise by law, calculated on the basis of the official Regulation on doctors fees fall within its scope?
Should Directive 2005/36 on rules of professional conduct be interpreted as meaning that national rules under which fees must be reasonable and, unless provided otherwise by law, calculated on the basis of the official Regulation on doctors fees fall within its scope even if the operation performed by the provider (in this case: a doctor) does not correspond to a code of the classification of medical acts of the host country?
Do the provisions prohibiting unethical advertising fall under the rules of professional conduct within the meaning of Directive 2005/36?
Does Article 6(a) of Directive 2005/36 precludes national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the Code of professional conduct for doctors and the related rules on professional tribunals are declared to be fully applicable to service providers who travel to the territory of the host Member State to pursue their profession on a temporary and occasional basis?
Should an exchange of shares in which a Member States limited company transfers shares in a company it owns to a Norwegian company and receives in return shares issued by the Norwegian company be treated in the same neutral way for tax purposes in the light of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement as if the exchange of shares concerned domestic public limited companies or companies established in Member States of the European Union?
Are supplies of timber made by a natural person for the purpose of alleviating the consequences of a case of force majeure come within the scope of an ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the VAT Directive and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive?
Does the principle of proportionality allow a national law imposing a fine, fixed at the level of the VAT which would normally be applicable for the value of the goods supplied, on an individual who has failed to fulfil his obligation to register in the register of taxable persons for VAT purposes, although that individual was not liable for that tax?
Are competent national authorities precluded from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if that withdrawal occurs after the completion of the one-year period of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80?
May Member States, according to Article 2 and provision M.B.902 of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003, read in the light of provision M.B.102 of Annex I to EASA Decision No 2003/19/RM, when adopting measures to complement the implementation of that regulation, distribute the tasks involved in the inspection of aircraft airworthiness among several specialised categories of inspectors?
Does provision M.B.902(b), point 1, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 mean that any individual who is responsible for the inspection of aircraft airworthiness in a specific field must have five years experience covering all aspects of what is involved in ensuring the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft?
Must the at least five years experience in continuing airworthiness, which must be possessed, in accordance with provision M.B.902(b), point 1, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003, by the staff responsible for reviewing the airworthiness of aircraft, have been acquired by work within an aircraft maintenance workshop?
Does Regulation No 2042/2003 enable Member States to treat in the same way and subject to the same obligations – in particular as regards the required experience of at least five years in continuing airworthiness – both graduates holding an aeronautical degree and holders of an aircraft maintenance licence, within the meaning of the Annex to that regulation, headed Part-66?
Does provision M.B.902(b) of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 give the competent authorities of the Member States the power to select, as candidates to perform the duties of aircraft airworthiness inspectors, individuals who do not possess one of the qualifications required, such as experience in continuing airworthiness or aeronautical maintenance training, and to provide that those individuals are to pursue training in the area(s) of deficiency after their selection and before they assume their duties, although no appraisal criterion is necessarily provided for on the conclusion of such training?
Does the requirement of a position with appropriate responsibilities in provision M.B.902(b), point 4, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 refer to duties performed in the past by such staff or, on the contrary, to the position occupied by the individual concerned in connection with his duties as an inspector of aircraft airworthiness?
Does Regulation No 2042/2003 mean that the competent authorities of the Member States are obliged to provide that the individuals who were performing the duties of inspecting aircraft airworthiness at the date when that regulation entered into force are to continue, automatically and without any selection procedure, to perform such duties?
Does Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 preclude the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to grant a vendor established in that Member State the exemption from VAT for intra-Community supplies where (i) the right to dispose of goods as owner is transferred, on the territory of that Member State, to a purchaser established in another Member State which, at the time of the transaction, has a VAT identification number in that other Member State and which assumes responsibility for the transportation of those goods to the other Member State and (ii) the vendor satisfies itself that the goods sold have been picked up by the foreign-registered vehicles, and is in possession of the CMRs returned by the purchaser from the Member State of destination, as proof that the goods have been transported to a destination outside the Member State of the vendor?
May a vendor be refused the VAT exemption for an intra-Community supply, in accordance with Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, on the ground that the tax authority of another Member State has removed the purchaser’s VAT identification number from the register, with retroactive effect from a date prior to the sale of the goods even though the number was removed after the goods had been supplied?
Does Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive mean that advisory services concerning investment in transferable securities, provided by a third party to an IMC which is the manager of a special investment fund, fall within the concept of ‘management of special investment funds’ for the purposes of the exemption laid down in that provision, even if the third party has not acted on the basis of a mandate within the meaning of Article 5g of Directive 85/611 as amended by Directive 2001/10?
In a case where an applicant seeks subsidiary protection status following a refusal to grant refugee status and it is proposed that such an application should be refused, does the requirement to cooperate with an applicant imposed on a Member State in Article 4(1) of  Directive 2004/83 require the administrative authorities of the Member State in question to supply such applicant with the results of such an assessment before a decision is finally made so as to enable him or her to address those aspects of the proposed decision which suggest a negative result?
Does Article 204(1)(a) of the Customs Code mean that non-fulfilment of the obligation to immediately enter the removal of non-Community goods from the customs warehouse in the appropriate stock records, where those goods are re-exported upon the discharge of the customs warehousing procedure, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the goods concerned?
Does Article 48 TFEU, Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI, to that regulation, or paragraph 2(a) (Spain), of Annex XI to Regulation No 883/2004 preclude legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the theoretical amount of the retirement pension of the self-employed worker, migrant or non-migrant, is invariably calculated on contribution bases paid by that worker over the fixed reference period of 15 years preceding the payment of his last contribution in that Member State, divided by 210, when it is impossible for either the duration of that period or the divisor used to be adapted so as to take account of the fact that the worker concerned has exercised his right to freedom of movement?
Does Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13 amount to an infringement of the fundamental rights, found in Articles 16 and 17(1) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol of the ECHR, of the holder of exclusive broadcasting rights, since the holder of those rights is required to authorise any other broadcaster, established in the European Union, to make short news reports, without being able to seek compensation exceeding the additional costs directly incurred in providing access to the signal?
Do Articles 179, 180 and  273 of the VAT Directive 2996/112 preclude a national limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct?
Directive 2006/112 and the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and legal certainty preclude legislation that may refuse a taxable person the right to deduct VAT in relation to a supply of goods on the ground that, in view of factors relating to transactions upstream of that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually taken place?
Can a taxable person for VAT established in one Member State and carrying out in another Member State only technical testing or research work, not including taxable transactions, be regarded as having in that other Member State a ‘fixed establishment from which business transactions are effected’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the Eighth Directive and Article 3(a) of Directive 2008/9?
Is the interpretation given to the concept of ‘fixed establishment from which business transactions are effected’ called into question by the fact that the taxable person has, in the Member State where it has applied for refund, a wholly-owned subsidiary, the purpose of which is almost exclusively to supply the person with various services in respect of its technical testing activity?
Is a provision which permits a severance fund to invest assets allocated to an undertaking for collective investment only in units of investment funds which are authorised to sell in a certain Member State compatible with the freedom of movement of capital set out in Article 63 TFEU et seq?
Does Article 4a(1) of Regulation No 320/2006 mean that the undertaking to cease delivery of a certain quantity of sugar beet during the marketing year 2008/2009 may take the form of a unilateral declaration by the producer?
Does Article 4a(1) of Regulation No 320/2006 mean that the unilateral undertaking of the producer to cease delivery of a certain quantity of sugar beet during the marketing year 2008/2009 entails the inapplicability of his contractual obligations towards the sugar company?
Does the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC mean that the leasing of immovable property and the supplies of services linked to that leasing may be regarded as constituting a single supply, entirely exempt from VAT, or several independent supplies, assessed separately as regards whether they are subject to VAT?
Does the placing of electricity meters at a hight of 7 meters in a certain urban area known to house many Roma people fall within the scope of Directive 200/43?
Does treated less favourably within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 and put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 only apply to situations fixed in National legislation?
Does Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43 require the victim to establish facts which impose an unambiguous, incontestable and certain conclusion or inference that direct or indirect discrimination has occurred?
Does Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter and of Article 6 of the ECHR, mean that the executing judicial authorities can refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution on the ground that the issuing judicial authorities did not hear the requested person before that arrest warrant was issued?
Can the competent judicial authority of the State executing a European arrest warrant refuse the request for surrender without being in breach of the obligations authorised by the founding Treaties and the other provisions of European Union law, on the ground that the Member State issuing the European arrest warrant has failed to transpose or fully to transpose or has incorrectly transposed (in the sense that the condition of reciprocity has not been satisfied) Framework Decision 2002/584?
Does Directive 2008/94 apply to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer?
Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 mean that State pension benefits may be taken into account in assessing whether a Member State has complied with the obligation laid down in that article?
Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 mean that, in order for that article to apply, it is sufficient that the pension scheme is underfunded as of the date of the employers insolvency?
Does Directive 2008/94 mean that the measures adopted by the Member State following the judgment in Robins and Others (C-278/05) fulfil the obligations imposed by that directive?
Does Directive 2008/94 mean that the fact that the measures taken by a Member State subsequent to Robins and Others (C-278/05) have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49% of the value of their accrued old-age pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of that Member States obligations?
Does Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 preclude the executing judicial authorities from making the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a sentence conditional upon the conviction rendered in absentia being open to review in the issuing Member State?
Is Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 compatible with the requirements deriving from the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter and from the rights of the defence guaranteed under Article 48(2) of the Charter?
Does Article 53 of the Charter allow the executing Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the issuing Member State, in order to avoid an adverse effect on the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence guaranteed by its constitution?
Does European Union law give a parent who has parental responsibility and is a third-country national, for the purpose of maintaining regular personal relations and direct parental contact, a right to remain in the Member State of origin of his child who is a Union citizen, to be documented by a “residence card of a family member of a Union citizen”, if the child moves from there to another Member State in exercise of the right of freedom of movement?
Is it compatible with European Union law and the general principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination for normal retirement age, for the purposes of the second indent of Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, to be determined differently depending on the gender of the applicant for support for early retirement from farming and, in the case of female applicants, on the number of children raised by the applicant, under the provisions of the national retirement scheme of the Member State concerned relating to the age required for entitlement to an old-age pension?
What criteria should the national court take into account when interpreting the concept of “normal retirement age” at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Regulation No 1257/1999?
Does Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EC) impose on Member States to establish a body to ensure that compensation is provided to victims of road accidents in situations where, although the persons responsible for the damage had taken out insurance covering their civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles, the insurer has become insolvent?
Under the applicable European Union law, may an individual whose rights have been impaired as a result of the fact that the State had not implemented the First Directive require that State to comply with the directive by relying directly on the European Union legislation as against that State in order to obtain the guarantees which that State should have offered him on the basis of the directive, or damages from the State?
Can the States liability be put in issue if the damage has been brought about by a drafting error in the implementing EU legislation and to whom should it pay damages?
When a national court has before it an action for annulment of a national measure constituting a plan or programme within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 and it finds that the plan or programme was adopted in breach of the obligation laid down by that directive to carry out a prior environmental assessment, but finds that the contested measure implements Directive 91/676 appropriately, may it make use of a provision of its national law which would allow it to maintain some of the past effects of the measure until the date on which measures designed to remedy the irregularity which has been established entered into force?
Do Articles 3(3) and 22(2) of the Montreal Convention allow a passenger to claim compensation by virtue of the loss of baggage checked in another passengers name?
Does Article 27 of the TRIPs Agreement fall within a field for which the Member States have primary competence and, if so, may the national courts accord that provision direct effect subject to the conditions laid down by national law?
Is the invention of a pharmaceutical product such as the active chemical compound of a medicinal product patentable subject-matter within the meaning of Article 27 of the TRIPs Agreement?
Does a patent obtained following an application claiming the invention both of the process of manufacture of a pharmaceutical product and of the pharmaceutical product as such, but granted solely in relation to the process of manufacture, by reason of the rules set out in Articles 27 and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement, be regarded, as from the date of entry into force of that agreement, as covering the invention of that pharmaceutical product?
Does Directive 93/13 preclude legislation of a Member State which, while not providing in mortgage enforcement proceedings for grounds of objection based on the unfairness of a clause contained in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier, does not allow the court before which declaratory proceedings have been brought, which does have jurisdiction to assess whether such a clause is unfair, to grant interim relief in order to guarantee the full effectiveness of its final decision?
Does the concept of significant imbalance, found in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 require an assessment of the fairness of the contract, the legal remedies available, the understanding of the consumer at the time of signature, and as to wether a consumer could reasonably be expected to accept each provision of the contract had it been negotiated separately?
Does EU law, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU, Article 6(3) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the ECHR, Article 50 of the Charter, or Article 6 of the First Directive, Article 60a of the Fourth Directive and Article 38(6) of the Seventh Directive preclude national rules under which, in cases where the statutory nine-month period allowed for compiling and disclosing annual accounts to the relevant court maintaining the commercial register is exceeded, that court is required, first, to impose immediately a minimum periodic penalty on the company and on each of the bodies authorised to represent it, on the ground that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, they are liable for that failure to effect timely disclosure and, secondly, to impose immediately a new minimum periodic penalty on the company and on each of the bodies authorised to represent it, in respect of further failure for every two-month period thereafter, on the basis of the same presumption of liability, and in both cases - without first allowing them an opportunity to state views on the existence of the obligation to disclose or to invoke any obstacles to doing so and, in particular, without prior examination as to whether those annual accounts have already been submitted to the court which maintains the register in the judicial district of which the principal place of business is situated; and - without first giving the company or the bodies authorised to represent it notice to comply with the disclosure obligation?
Does Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State?
Does Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 apply for the purposes of determining the court with jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State?
Does the principle of non-discrimination laid down by Article 18 TFEU preclude national legislation which restricts the power to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a penalty involving deprivation of liberty to cases where the person whose extradition is sought is a national of that Member State?
Is the principle of the implementation in domestic law of the grounds for non-enforcement provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 a matter for the discretion of the Member States?
Does the term ”material assets” in Article 3 of Directive 85/337 also cover the value of those assets ?
Does the environmental impact assessment serve also to protect an individual against pecuniary damage as a result of a decrease in the value of his property?
Can a pension fund be a ”special investment fund” as found in Article 135 of Directive 2006/112?
Do Member States have the right to decide which funds are special without taking account of the market structure?
Do the provisions of the Agreement with Switzerland preclude the benefit of joint taxation with the use of the “splitting” procedure from being refused to spouses residing in Switzerland who are subject to taxation in a EU Member State on their entire taxable income?
Does Article 3 of Directive 2001/23 preclude a Member State from providing, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, that dynamic clauses referring to collective agreements negotiated and agreed after the date of transfer are enforceable against the transferee?
What kind of objective justification does the employer have to provide in circumstances where there is prima facie indirect gender discrimination in pay, in breach of Article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117?
May interests of good industrial relations be taken into account in the determination of whether the employer could objectively justify the difference in pay?
Does the banned practice set out in paragraph 31 of Annex I to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29 prohibit traders from informing consumers that they have won a prize or equivalent benefit, when in fact the consumer may have to pay, including a de minimis cost, in relation to claiming the prize or equivalent benefit?
Does the use of the words “false impression” in paragraph 31 of Annex I to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29 impose some requirement additional to the requirement that the consumer pays money or incurs a cost in relation to claiming the prize, in order for the national court to find that the provisions of paragraph 31 have been contravened and if so how should the national court determine whether such a "false impression" has been created?
In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, does Directive 2008/115 preclude the possibility that a third-country national who is considered by the Member State to be illegally staying there may be liable to a fine for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that persons illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?
In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, does Directive 2008/115 preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national who is considered by that Member State to be illegally staying there may be liable to a fine for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and the rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?
Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of that directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive?
Does Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code (Regulation 2913/92) mean that, if the competent authorities of the non-member country are unable, through a subsequent verification, to determine whether the certificate of origin Form A that they issued is based on a correct account of the facts provided by the exporter, the burden of proving that the certificate was based on a correct account of the facts provided by the exporter rests with the person liable for payment?
Does Article 135(1)(f) or (g) of Directive 2006/112 mean that portfolio management is exempt from VAT?
Is an ancillary service that does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied, also exempt from VAT if the principle service is so?
Does Article 56(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 only cover the services referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Directive 2006/112 ?
Does the judgment in Miethe (C-1/85) remain relevant, following the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004, for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 65(2) of that regulation, with the result that a worker who has maintained personal and business links with the State where he was last employed of such a kind that his prospects of reintegration into working life are greatest there, may choose to make himself available to the employment services of that Member State, not only in order to receive assistance from that Member State in seeking new employment, but also to obtain unemployment benefit?
Do the rules on the freedom of movement for workers, in particular those in Article 45 TFEU preclude the Member State where the person was last employed from refusing, under its national law, to award unemployment benefit to a wholly unemployed frontier worker who has the best prospects of reintegration into working life in that Member State, on the ground that that worker does not reside in its territory?
Do the transitional provisions of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the right of property and the principles of legal certainty or of the protection of legitimate expectations give workers, who reside in one Member State while they work in another and experience two periods of unemployment, the right to continue to receive unemployment benefit from the State where they were last employed?
Does Article 32 of Regulation No 44/2001 also cover a judgment by which a court of a Member State declines jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause, even though that judgment is classified as a procedural judgment by the law of another Member State?
Do Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 bind the court before which recognition is sought of a judgment by which a court of another Member State has declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause by the finding – made in the grounds of a judgment, which has since become final, declaring the action inadmissible – regarding the validity of that clause?
Does Directive 2001/29 affect acts of using protected works or other subject-matter from 22 June 2001, the date on which that directive came into force, to 22 December 2002, the date by which that directive was to have been transposed into national law?
Does the fact that rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their protected work affect the fair compensation which is provided for, on a compulsory or optional basis, under the relevant provisions of Directive 2001/29?
Is it sufficient, in order to satisfy the requirement laid down in Article 5(I) of Directive 97/7 that a consumer must receive confirmation of the information mentioned therein on a durable medium available and accessible to him, unless that information has already been provided to him at the time of conclusion of the contract or on a durable medium available and accessible to him, that that information is accessible to the consumer by means of a hyperlink on the contractors website, which the consumer must indicate  that he has taken note by ticking a box in order to be able to enter into a contractual relationship?
Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of Directive 2001/29 render inapplicable the condition relating to fair compensation provided for by Article 5(2)(b)?
Does the concept of reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 include reproductions effected using a printer, scanner or a personal computer, and, in such a case, which person must be considered as owing the fair compensation under that provision?
Are Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU on the free movement of goods to be interpreted as precluding prosecution for complicity in the unauthorised distribution of copyright works under national criminal law where, in the case of the cross-border sale of a work protected by copyright in a Member State A, the work is transported to this Member State A from a Member State B and the effective power of disposal over the work is transferred to the first Member State A, while the transfer of ownership takes place in the other Member State B , where the work is not protected by copyright or where such protection cannot be relied on effectively against third parties?
Does Article 45 TFEU preclude national legislation which makes the grant of debt relief subject to a condition of residence in the Member State concerned?
Does a Member State exceed the limits of its discretion under Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2001/42 if, in respect of a municipality’s building plans which determine the use of small areas at local level and set the framework for future development consent of projects but do not fall within the scope of Article 3(2), it decides, by specifying a particular type of building plan which is characterised by a threshold based on surface area and by a qualitative condition, to waive the procedural provisions on environmental assessment and also provides that an infringement of those procedural provisions which stems from the fact that the municipality has incorrectly assessed the qualitative condition is irrelevant for the legal validity of a building plan of that particular type?
Does point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18 preclude national legislation which provides that a situation of grave professional misconduct arises where the contracting authority concerned has annulled a previous public contract with that same economic operator owing to circumstances for which that operator is responsible, where the annulment occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5% of the contract’s value?
Do the principles and rules of EU public procurement law allow, on the grounds of the protection of the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authorities or the maintenance of fair competition between economic operators, national legislation requiring the contracting authorities to automatically exclude an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public contract in a situation such as that referred to in the first question?
Do Directive 2006/54 and Directive 92/85 preclude the provisions of a national collective agreement, or the interpretation of those provisions, according to which a worker who moves from unpaid parental leave to maternity leave is not entitled to the payment of the remuneration provided for by the collective agreement during the maternity leave?
Does the concept of communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, cover a retransmission of the works included in a terrestrial television broadcast: - where the retransmission is made by an organisation other than the original broadcaster, - by means of an internet stream made available to the subscribers of that other organisation who may receive the retransmission by logging on to its server, - on the assumption that those subscribers are within the area of reception of the terrestrial television broadcast and may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver?
Is the answer to Question 1 influenced if retransmission is funded by advertising and is therefore of a profit-making nature by an organisation which is acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster?
Does Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 allow Member States, without any particular assessment, to refuse to refund that part of the overpayment of VAT which exceeds 18% (which corresponds to the general rate of VAT) of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out during the tax months in question, as long as the national tax authorities have not received the annual tax return of the taxable person?
Is a professional body financed by the State or is its management subject to control by the State within the meaning of Article 1(9)(c) of Directive 2004/18 where the law empowers the body in question to collect a contribution from its members, without fixing the amount or specifying the scope of the services which it is intended to finance, but the scale of taxes and charges must be approved by the State?
Is Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of leasing and letting of immovable property includes the letting of a barge, including the space and the pontoon attached to it, which is used exclusively for the fixed and permanent operation of a restaurant/discotheque on a defined and identifiable site on the water?
Does this assessment depend on the way in which the barge is attached to the ground or on the means necessary to remove the attachments from the boat?
Is Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of vehicles, which, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-428/02, also includes boats, does not apply to a barge which has no propulsion system (engine) and which has been hired for the exclusive and permanent use of the specified place and not for the purpose of being moved? Does the hire of the barge and the pontoon, including the land and the water adjoining it, constitute a single exempt service or should the hire of the barge and the pontoon be distinguished for the purposes of turnover tax?
Is Article 2(I), read in conjunction with recital 9, of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a third-country national who has lodged an application for international protection under Directive 2005/85?
Should the detention of a third-country national for the purpose of return be terminated if the third-country national has lodged an application for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85 and there are no other grounds for extending the detention?
Does the term "issued" in the introductory sentence of the Annex to Regulation 726/2004 also apply to processes by which quantities of a medicinal product developed and produced in accordance with the above mentioned procedures are filled into another container on the order of a doctor, if the composition of the medicinal product is not altered as a result, and in particular to the manufacture of ready-to-use syringes filled with a medicinal product which is authorised under the Regulation?
Must Article 4a of Directive 1999/32, adopted in the light of the entry into force of Annex VI to the Marpol Convention, be interpreted, in accordance with the international principle of good faith and the principle of loyal cooperation between the Community and the Member States, as meaning that the limitation to 1, 5 % by mass of the sulphur content of marine diesel oil does not apply to ships flying the flag of a non-EU State which is a party to the Marpol Convention, even though those ships are in the port of a Member State which is also a party to Annex VI to the said Convention?
Is Article 4a of Directive 1999/32 unlawful, since it runs counter to the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda, as well as to the principle of loyal cooperation between the Community and the Member States, by obliging the Member States which have ratified and are party to Annex VI to disregard their obligations to the other States party to Annex VI to the Marpol Convention?
Is the concept of regular service in Article 2(3)(g) of Directive 1999/32 to be interpreted as meaning that cruise ships are to be regarded as ships engaged in a regular service?
Does Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 require a Member State to make legislative provision to facilitate entry to and/or residence in a Member State to the class of other family members who are not nationals of the European Union who can meet the requirements of Article 10(2) of that directive?
Can family members who are not EU citizens rely on the direct applicability of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 in the event that they cannot comply with any requirements imposed by national legislative provisions?
In order to fall within the category, referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, of family members who are dependants of a Union citizen, is it necessary to have resided in the same State as that citizen and to have been a dependant of that citizen shortly before or at the time when the latter settled in the host Member State?
May a Member State impose particular requirements as to the nature or duration of dependence as referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, in order to satisfy itself that such dependence is genuine and stable and has not been brought about with the sole objective of obtaining entry into and residence in its territory?
Must the dependency on which the other family member relies in order to be admitted to the Member State continue for a period or indefinitely in the host State for a residence card to be issued or renewed pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2004/38?
Does every interference with the right to religious freedom that infringes Article 10(1) of the Charter constitute an act of persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 or must a distinction be made between the core areas of religious freedom and its external manifestation?
Does Article 2(c) of the Directive 2004/83 mean that an applicants fear of being persecuted is well-founded where such a person can avoid exposure to persecution in the country of origin by abstaining from certain religious practices?
Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 preclude national provisions under which a worker who becomes unfit for work during a period of paid annual leave is not entitled subsequently to the paid annual leave which coincided with the period of unfitness for work?
Is National law on the administrative liability of legal persons that does not provide that such persons may be held liable, in criminal proceedings, for the damage caused by such persons to the victims of criminal acts, incompatible with Directive 2004/80 and Article 9 of the Framework Decision 2001/220?
Must Article 135(I)(k) of the 2006 VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 12(3) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that  the supply of undeveloped land obtained through the demolition of buildings thereon, which demolition is carried out for the purpose of reconstruction, should not be exempted from VAT?
Does Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/CE to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires operators who do not own the network but use it to provide mobile telephony services to pay a fee for the right to install facilities on the municipal public domain?
If the tax in question is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/CE, do the conditions under which the tax is imposed under the contested local ordinance satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination required by that provision, as well as the need to ensure optimal use of the resources in question?
Should Article 13 of the above-mentioned Directive 2002/20/CE be recognised as having direct effect?
Does Article 79(1) of Regulation 1408/71 infringe the general principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined, inter alia, in Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms read in conjunction with Articles 17, 39 and/or 43 of the consolidated version of the EC Treaty, when interpreted as allowing only the deceased parent to benefit from the rules on the assimilation of periods of insurance, employment or self-employment set out in Article 72?
Must Article 16 of Regulation No 111/1999 be interpreted as conferring jurisdiction on the CJEU to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency appointed to receive tenders submitted in response to invitations to tender for the free supply of agricultural products to Russia pays the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by the successful tenderer in favour of that agency, including actions for compensation for damage resulting from faults committed by the intervention agency in carrying out these operations?
Where it appears that a producer who has received Community aid for the storage of concentrated grape must in return for concluding a storage contract with the national intervention agency has acquired the grape must from a fictitious or non-existent company and then had it concentrated under his responsibility before storing it, can he be regarded as the owner of the concentrated grape must within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1059/83?
Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1059/83 applicable where the storage contract concluded with the national intervention agency is affected by a particularly serious defect, in particular the fact that the company which concluded the contract with the national intervention agency cannot be regarded as the owner of the products stored?
Where a sectoral regulation, such as Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, establishes a system of Community aid without a system of penalties for failure to comply with its provisions, does Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 apply in the event of such failure?
Where an economic operator has failed to fulfil the obligations laid down by a sectoral Community regulation, such as Regulation No 1059/83, and the conditions laid down therein for entitlement to Community aid, and where that sectoral regulation provides, as in the case of Article 17 of the above mentioned regulation, for a system of measures or penalties, does that system apply to the exclusion of any other system provided for by European Union law, even though the failure in question is detrimental to the financial interests of the European Union? Or is the system of administrative measures and penalties provided for in Regulation No 2988/95, on the contrary, the only one applicable in the case of such an infringement? Or are both regulations applicable?
If both the Sector Regulation and Regulation 2988/95 are applicable in circumstances such as those of the present case, how should their provisions be combined to determine the measures and sanctions to be applied?
Where an economic operator has committed several infringements of Union law and some of these infringements fall within the scope of the system of measures or penalties of a sectoral regulation, while others constitute irregularities within the meaning of Regulation No 2988/95, is Regulation No 2988/95 alone to be applied?
Must Article I(2) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted in a sense that contractual price variation clauses in gas supply contracts concluded with consumers who are supplied outside the general obligation to supply, in the context of freedom of contract under ordinary law, are not subject to the provisions of that directive in so far as the legal rules in force, which are applicable to customers covered by the standard tariff in the context of the general obligation to connect and supply, are reproduced as they stand in the contractual relations with customers under special contract?
Must the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 5 and points I(j) and 2(b) of Annex A to Directive 93/13 and the combined provisions of Article 3(3) and Annex A(b) and/or (c) to Directive 2003/55 be interpreted, in so far as they are applicable, as meaning that contractual price variation clauses in gas supply contracts with special contract customers comply with the requirements of clear and comprehensible drafting, and/or the necessary degree of transparency where, without indicating the reason, conditions and extent of a price change, they nevertheless ensure that the gas supply undertaking will notify its customers of any price increase with reasonable notice and that customers are free to terminate the contract if they do not wish to accept the amended conditions notified to them?
In the light of the C-360/09 Pfleiderer judgment in particular, does Union law preclude a national antitrust provision under which access to the files of the competition court by third parties who are not parties to the proceedings for the purpose of preparing actions for damages against cartel participants is made subject to the consent of all parties to the proceedings without the consent of the Commission? (also) in proceedings in which Article 10(I) or Article 102 TFEU in conjunction with Regulation No 1/2003 has been applied, to the consent of all parties to the proceedings without exception and which does not allow the court to carry out a case-by-case balancing of the interests protected by Union law in order to determine the conditions under which access to the files is granted or refused?
Does EU law preclude a national provision of the same nature as that discussed in the present case when that provision is admittedly applicable in the same way as a purely national procedure in the matter of agreements and that it does not, provide for any special rule for documents made available by applicants for leniency, whereas similar national provisions allow, in other types of proceedings, access to court files without the consent of the parties, on condition that the third party who is not a party to the proceedings plausibly demonstrates that he has a legal interest access to records and that the best interests of another person or superior public interests do not preclude access to records?
What is meant by Internet within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the CN for a good to be classified under code 8528 71 13?
What is meant by modem within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the CN for a good to be classified under code 8528 71 13?
What is meant by "modulation" and "demodulation" within the meaning of the CN Explanatory Notes for a good to be classified under code 8528 7113?
What is the main function of the device designated as a separate module, according to which its tariff classification should be made: the reception of television signals or the use of a modem for interactive information exchange for Internet access?
If the main function of the device designated as a separate module is the use of a modem for interactive information exchange for the purpose of Internet access, does the type of modulation and demodulation performed by the modem and the type of modem used matter for tariff classification purposes, or is it sufficient that it provides Internet access?
In which position and under which code should a device meeting the description of the separate module be classified?
If a separate module such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is classified under CN subheading 8521 90 00, would the levying of customs duties at a positive rate be lawful under Community law as a breach of the Communitys obligations under the ITA, or does classification under heading 8521 lead to the conclusion that a separate module falls outside the scope of the relevant ITA provisions?
Is it permissible for the customs authorities to change the tariff classification of a particular good without carrying out a physical check of the imported good, even though the expert report was drawn up solely on the basis of written evidence, i.e. the users manual, the technical characteristics and the examination of an appliance from the same manufacturer bearing the same number but originating from a different import?
Does the concept of "disability" within the meaning of Directive 2000/78 apply to any person who, owing to physical, mental or psychological impairments, is unable to carry out his work for a period which satisfies the duration requirement referred to in paragraph 45  of C-13/05 (Chacon Navas), or is able to do so only to a limited extent?
Can a medical condition caused by a medically proven incurable disease, depending on the circumstances, fall within the concept of disability within the meaning of Directive 2000/78/CE?
Can a medical condition caused by a medically curable disease, depending on the circumstances, fall within the concept of disability within the meaning of Directive 2000/78/CE?
Does a permanent disability which does not require the use of special or other equipment and which results essentially in the fact that the person suffering from it is unable to work full time, fall within the concept of disability within the meaning of Directive 2000/78?
Can the reduction of working time be one of the measures covered by Article 5 of Directive 2000/78?
Does Directive 2000/78 preclude the application of a national law under which an employer may terminate a contract of employment with reduced notice if the worker, who is to be regarded as disabled within the meaning of that directive, has been on sick leave with continued pay for a total of 120 days during the preceding 12 months where the workers absences are the result of his disability?
Does Directive 2000/78 preclude the application of a national law under which an employer may terminate a contract of employment with reduced notice if the worker, who is to be regarded as disabled within the meaning of that directive, has been on sick leave with continued pay for a total of 120 days during the preceding 12 months where the workers absences are attributable to the employers failure to take the necessary practical steps to enable a disabled person to perform his or her job?
In the circumstances where an individual 	is a citizen of a Member State A, came to a Member State B before her or his country acceded to the EU remained in the second Member State following accession of her/his country to the EU, thereafter established her or himself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU is no longer in self-employment; and is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she/he was established in self-employment, does the claimant have a right to reside in the Member State B on the basis that there is a general principle of EU law that equates the position of workers and the self-employed?
In the circumstances where an individual 	is a citizen of a Member State A, came to a Member State B before her or his country acceded to the EU remained in the second Member State following accession of her/his country to the EU, thereafter established her or himself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU is no longer in self-employment; and is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she/he was established in self-employment, does the claimant have a right to reside in the Member State B on the basis that it would impede or deter the freedom of establishment if the claimant did not have a right to reside?
In the circumstances where an individual 	is a citizen of a Member State A, came to a Member State B before her or his country acceded to the EU remained in the second Member State following accession of her/his country to the EU, thereafter established her or himself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU is no longer in self-employment; and is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she/he was established in self-employment, does the claimant have a right to reside in the Member State B on some other basis?
Do Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Directive 2006/112 preclude a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct from the VAT which he is liable to pay in respect of services supplied to him on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services acted improperly, without that authority establishing that the taxable person concerned was aware of that improper conduct or colluded in that conduct himself?
Do Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 preclude a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his VAT obligations, or on the ground that that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled?
Is Article 49 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a national measure which makes the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that Member State capital tax for the next five tax years?
Must Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant to employers of a subsidy for the recruitment of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the unemployed person recruited has been registered as a job seeker in that same Member State, where such registration is subject to a condition of residence in the national territory?
Is the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 to be interpreted as meaning that the cessation of protection or assistance on the part of a United Nations organ or agency concerns the situation of a person who has left that area of operations in circumstances such as those characterising the departure of each of the applicants in the main proceedings?
Must the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person may "be entitled to the benefits of [the] Directive" means that the person concerned is automatically entitled to refugee status?
Must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trademark right, the words “licensees of prior rights” may refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trademark solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trademark, but without being authorised to put the trade mark to other uses or to use the sign as a trademark?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: must Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation No 874/2004 be interpreted as meaning that “rights or legitimate interest” exist even if the “licensee of prior rights” has obtained registration of the .eu domain name in his own name but on behalf of the proprietor of the trade mark where the latter is not eligible in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002?
Is Regulation No 1031/2008 valid in so far as it classifies under CN code 8443 31 91 multifunctional printers such as those at issue in the main proceedings, combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function, released for free circulation in April 2009?
Must the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality, principles arising from the case-law of the Court, and the right to property laid down in Article 6 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national system which limits the interest granted on repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of that tax?
Do provisions of law allowing unpaid leave for union business to be granted to workers with a fixed&#8209;term employment relationship in the public sector who do not occupy an established post and who are officials of a trade union organisation introduce a “working condition” within the meaning of Article 137(1)(b) EC and an “employment condition” in accordance with Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [Directive 1999/70]?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is a worker with a private&#8209;law employment relationship of indefinite duration with the civil service who occupies an established post and is employed on the same work as a worker with a private-law fixed-term employment relationship who does not occupy an established post “comparable” to that worker within the meaning of Clauses 3(2) and 4(1) of the framework agreement [Directive 1999/70]?
If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: If the effect of a combination of national legislative provisions is that public sector employees with an employment relationship of indefinite duration who hold an established post and who are officials of a second level trade union organisation receive paid leave for trade union business, while workers in the same service with a fixed-term employment relationship who do not hold an established post but who do have the same trade union status receive unpaid leave of the same duration for trade union business, does the distinction in question constitute less favourable treatment of the second category of workers within the meaning of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement [Directive 1999/70]?
If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: Do the fixed term of the employment relationship of the second category of workers and the fact that that category is distinct in terms of the employment regime in general (terms of recruitment, promotion and termination of the employment relationship) constitute objective grounds that might justify that discrimination?
Does the distinction between trade union officials who are workers with a contract of indefinite duration and who hold an established post in the civil service and fixed-term workers with the same trade union status who do not hold an established post in the same service infringe the principle of non&#8209;discrimination in the pursuit of trade union rights in accordance with Articles 12, 20, 21 and 28 of the Charter?
Does a contributory retirement pension on the basis of the contributions made by and on behalf of the worker during the entirety of his working life fall within the concept of “employment conditions” to which the prohibition of discrimination in Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 97/81 refers?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a proportionally greater contribution period from a part-time worker than from a full-time worker for the former to qualify, if appropriate, for a contributory retirement pension in an amount reduced in proportion to the part-time nature of his work?
Must the “aspects and conditions of remuneration” under the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 and Article 157 TFEU be interpreted as covering national rules that govern the method of contribution, access, and quantification with regard to the contributory retirement pension for part-time workers?
In the event that the contributory retirement pension were not regarded either as a “condition of employment” or as “pay”: is the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex laid down in Article 4 of Directive 79/7 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a proportionally greater contribution period from part-time workers (the vast majority of whom are women) than from full-time workers for the former to qualify, if appropriate, for a contributory retirement pension in an amount reduced in proportion to the part-time nature of their work?
Where a Member State has chosen to make authorisation to cultivate GMOs, including those listed in the Common Catalogue of species of agricultural plants provided for in Directive 2002/53, conditional upon compliance with appropriate general measures for ensuring coexistence with conventional and organic farming, must Article 26a of Directive 2001/18, read in the light of the Recommendations of 23 July 2003 and of 13 July 2010, be interpreted as meaning that, in the period preceding adoption of the general measures:
   a) authorisation must be issued where the application concerns GMOs listed in the Common Catalogue; or
   b) consideration of the application for authorisation must be suspended until such time as the general measures have been adopted; or
   c) authorisation must be issued, but coupled with appropriate requirements for preventing, in the specific case, contact — including unintended contact — between authorised GM crops and surrounding conventional or organic crops?
Do Articles 3, 12 and 13 of the Authorisation Directive (2002/20/EC) preclude Member States from charging mobile telephone operators holding rights of use for radio frequencies a one-off fee for the renewal of those rights, when that fee is in addition to: 
  - an annual fee for making frequencies available, intended to cover the costs of making frequencies available while at the same time also partially reflecting the value of frequencies, the purpose of the one-off fee and the annual fee being to encourage optimal use of the scarce resource that radio frequencies are; and 
  - a fee covering the cost of managing the authorisation?
Do Articles 3, 12 and 13 of the Authorisation Directive (2002/20/EC) preclude Member States from charging mobile telephone operators holding rights of use for radio frequencies a one-off fee for a new acquisition of rights of use for radio frequencies, when that one-off fee is in addition to:
  - an annual fee for making frequencies available, intended to cover the costs of making frequencies available while at the same time also partially reflecting the value of frequencies, the purpose of the one-off fee and the annual fee being to encourage optimal use of the scarce resource that radio frequencies are; and 
  - a fee covering the cost of managing the authorisation?
Must Article 14(2) of the Authorisation Directive (2002/20/EC) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from charging a mobile telephone operator a fee such as that at issue in the main proceedings?
Must Article 14(1) of the Authorisation Directive (2002/20/EC) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from charging a mobile telephone operator a fee such as that at issue in the main proceedings?
Does a contract, whereby one public entity assigns to another public entity the task of cleaning certain office, administrative and school buildings in return for financial compensation intended to correspond to the costs incurred in the performance of the task, constitute a public service contract within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18?
Having regard to the rules on the territorial scope of VAT, can Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that, for calculation of the deductible proportion for which they provide, the principal establishment of a company established in a Member State must take account of the income of each of its branches established in another Member State and, correspondingly, those branches must take account of the totality of the income falling within the scope of VAT of the company?
Must the same solution be adopted for branches established outside the EU, in the light of the right to deduct provided for by Article 17(3)(a) and (c) of the Sixth Directive, in relation to the banking and financial operations referred to in Article 13B(d)(1) to (5), which are carried out for the benefit of customers established outside the EU?
Might the answer to the first and second questions above vary from one Member State to another, depending on the options made available by the last subparagraph of Article 17(5), particularly with regard to the establishment of different sectors of business?
If the answer to either the first or the second questions above is in the affirmative: is it appropriate to limit the application of a deductible proportion of that kind to calculation of rights to deduct VAT that has been charged on expenses incurred by the principal establishment for the benefit of foreign branches; and must income achieved abroad be taken into account in accordance with the rules applicable in the State of the branch or in the State of the principal establishment?’
Must Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 be interpreted as meaning that the reduction referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) must be applied in the case where an exporter, acting in good faith and giving an exact description of the nature and origin of the goods at issue, makes a request for a refund for an exportation which does not give a right to a refund?
Does the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information laid down in the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1768/95 become established only if the request for information from the holder of the variety right is received by the supplier of processing services before the expiry of the marketing year (or the most recent marketing year where there are several) concerned by the request?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: for there to be a request for information “complying with the time-limit”, is it sufficient that the holder claims that they have some indication that the supplier has processed or intends to process harvested material of the protected variety which the farmer named in the request has obtained by planting from propagating material of the protected variety so that they do not need to provide evidence of that indication?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: can indications establishing the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information be derived from the fact that the supplier of processing services, as the agent of the holder of the plant variety right, performs a propagation contract for the production of consumption-related seed of the protected variety, which the holder of the plant variety right has concluded with the farmer effecting propagation, where and because the farmer is in fact granted the possibility, in performing the propagation contract, of using some of the propagation seed for planting?
Must Article 9(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prevent all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later Community trade mark without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand?
Regarding the taxation of dividends distributed by resident companies to non-resident UCITS, in order to determine whether there is a difference in treatment amounting to an obstacle to the free movement of capital contrary to article 63 TFEU, should situations be compared only by reference to the investment vehicle or should the situation of the shareholdersa lso be taken into account?
If the situation of the shareholders must also be taken into account, under what conditions could the disputed withholding tax be considered to be in conformity with the principle of free movement of capital?
Should Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant a third country national a residence permit on the basis of family reunification where that national seeks to reside with his spouse, who is also a third country national and resides lawfully in that Member State and is the mother of a child from a previous marriage who is a Union citizen, and with the child of their own marriage, who is also a third country national?
Should Article 20 TFEU be interpreted differently in a situation where the third-country national lives together with his spouse and the spouses child in the territory of the Member State?
Should article 20 TFEU be interpreted differently where the third-country national has returned to his country of origin, but has, with his spouse, a child who is a third-country national, who resides in the Member State concerned and is in the joint custody of both parents?
Does the principle of fiscal neutrality preclude a penalty consisting in a refusal of the right to deduct VAT and the imposition of interest payments if the tax is accounted for out of time?
If it is possible, in a European order for payment procedure, to demand, in addition to the principal, only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due: who must indicate the amount of interest: the party concerned or the court of its own motion, and does the party concerned have an obligation to indicate the amount of calculated interest in the application?
Must Article 185(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the adjustment of input VAT deducted in the event of the destruction of an asset in respect of which the principal amount and the invoiced VAT have been paid in full, and which makes the absence of adjustment of input VAT subject to a condition other than the making of payment?
Is Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the possibility of adjustment of input VAT already deducted in the case of the demolition of buildings carried out for the sole purpose of constructing new, more modern buildings with the same purpose and used for supplies giving rise to the right to deduct input VAT?
Should a comparison of the tax consequences of single status on the one hand and spousal status on the other be made when considering whether or not single status is permissible in this case?
Is it contrary to Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 to dismiss a female employee at any time during her pregnancy as a result of absence through illness arising from that pregnancy?
Is it contrary to Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 to dismiss a female employee at any time during her pregnancy as a result of absence through illness arising from that pregnancy, in pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the employer to dismiss employees, irrespective of gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of continuous absence?
Is it contrary to Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207) to dismiss a female employee as a result of absence through illness arising from pregnancy who does not qualify for the right to absent herself from work on account of pregnancy or childbirth for the period specified by national law because she has not been employed for the period imposed by national law, where dismissal takes place during that period?
Does it make any difference that the employee was dismissed in pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the employer to dismiss employees, irrespective of gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of continued absence?
Is the concept of fixed establishment in Article 9(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking established in one Member State A which hires or leases a number of vehicles to customers who are established in another Member State B has a fixed establishment in the other Member State B by virtue of the fact that the vehicles are leased?
Should Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that services consisting in the leasing of vehicles may be deemed to be performed and concluded with customers established in Member State B where the head office of the service provider is established in Member State A and almost all the contracts are negotiated from the head office in Member State A and concluded with customers established in that Member State A and only a limited number of vehicles are purchased in Member State B and are maintained or repaired in Member State B?
Are Articles 6 and 59 of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted as prohibiting the granting of a lower interest to foreign taxable persons who receive goods or services in Member State B and apply for a refund of the related VAT in accordance with the Eighth VAT Directive, which, moreover, starts to accrue from the moment when the foreign taxable person has put Member State A on notice, whereas the deferred refund to taxable persons in Member State A gives rise to a higher interest rate which starts to accrue automatically and without notice of default from the expiry of the legal refund period?
Does Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs precludes a national legislation which imposes the use of the language of a Member State A on the alimentary products sold in that Member State A ?
Does a trader in Member State A satisfy the requirements of Article 14 of Directive 79/112/EEC by affixing in his store, at the place where the product concerned is located, an additional label bearing the required information in the language of Member State A ?
Can Council Regulation No 1738/91 be regarded as valid, in the light of the principle of legitimate expectations and the reasons which justified the introduction of the quota system, in that it makes an unexpected and unforeseeable reduction in the price and processing premium for a variety of tobacco at a time when the tobacco harvesting year is so far advanced that even the most cautious and well-informed producers no longer have any room for manoeuvre are neither explicitly nor implicitly motivated and are more severe than those relating to other tobacco varieties for which larger production surpluses  have been recorded,?
Does Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes a Member State from applying a rule against overlapping under which, when calculating a survivors pension awarded under its own legislation on the basis of the deceased spouses working life, account is to be taken of benefits to which the survivor is entitled in his or her own right in another Member State where those benefits are to be classified as retirement pensions or other equivalent benefits under the legislation of the first Member State?
Is Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that funds which a consumer pays to a supplier of services on the spot because the latter prevents him, if he does not receive the payment, from undertaking his return journey, fall within the sphere of protection of the aforementioned article in so far as they constitute a guarantee for the repatriation of the consumer?
Does Article 3(a) of the Eighth Directive  79/1072/EEC preclude Member States from providing in their national law that a taxable person referred to in Article 2 of the Directive may, in the event of the loss of an invoice or import document for which he is not responsible, prove his entitlement to a refund by producing a duplicate of the invoice or import document in question?
May Member State A invoke Article 36 EC and the ground of public order, morality and animal welfare in order to limit exports of live animals to Member State B, where animal protection is less strict and veals are reared in crates, which are in line with Directive 91/629 on animal welfare but not with the European Convention for Farm Animals (1976)?
Is Directive 91/629 valid?
Is the validity of the allocation to the United Kingdom of its cod and whiting quotas in Area VIIa pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 dependent on whether Annex VII to the Council Resolution of 3 November 1976 (61978CJ0141) was properly adopted?
Was Annex VII (to 61978CJ0141) properly adopted?
Are the answers to Questions 1 or 2 affected by the fact that Annex VII (to 61978CJ0141) is a document which is classified as secret and which has not been published or otherwise made available to the parties?
Having regard to all other circumstances, was the fixing of the said quotas by the Council compatible with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 and the principle of proportionality?
If the fixing of the said quotas by Regulation No 3362/94 is invalid, are the Applicants entitled to claim damages against the Respondent?
Does it follow from the principle of non-discrimination under Community law and the principle of the neutrality of turnover tax that a taxable person referred to in Article 2 of the Eight Directive (79/1072) is entitled, in the event of the loss of the invoices or import documents referred to in Article 3(a) which is not attributable to him, to prove his entitlement to reimbursement by producing a duplicate of the invoice or import document?
With regard to the autonomous concept of "same parties" used by article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968, is there a situation of international lis pendens within the meaning of this text when a court of a Contracting State is seized, on behalf of the hull insurer of a vessel which has been wrecked, of a claim for partial reimbursement, as a contribution to the general average, of the owner and the insurer of the cargo on board, while a court of another Contracting State has previously been seized by the owner and the insurer of the cargo, seeking to have it held that they were not liable to contribute to the general average, since the court seized of the case in the second place, in order to decline jurisdiction despite the obstacle arising from the absence of formal identity of the parties in the two proceedings, notes that the procedural law applicable before the court first seized restricts the possibility for an insurer to be present in the litigation in which its insured is involved and that it would result that the insurer on the body would in fact also be present by interposed insurer(s) in the proceeding brought in the first place?
Are article 48 of the EC Treaty and articles 1 to 3 of Regulation 1612/68 to be interpreted as meaning that these provisions also confer on national employers the right to employ workers who are nationals of another Member State, without these workers being required to satisfy conditions which, although they do not refer to nationality, are typically linked to the status of nationals of a State?
Are Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation No 1612/68 to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude national legislation under which the owner of the undertaking carrying on the craft, commercial or industrial activity may appoint as legal manager only a person who is resident in the Member State which adopted the measure?
Having regard to the provisons of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC and in particular to Article 2(1) thereof, what is the proper test to be applied in deciding whether a transaction consists for VAT purposes of a single composite supply or of two or more independent supplies?
Does the supply by an undertaking of a service or services of the kind provided by the applicant through the card protection Plan operated by them constitute for VAT purposes a single composite supply or two or more independent supplies? Are there any particular features of the present case that affect the answer to that question?
Does the term insurance within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive include the classes of activity, in particular assistance activity, listed in the Annex to Council Directive 73/239/EEC?
Do the related services of ... insurance agents in Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive constitute or include the activities referred to in Article 2 of Council Directive 77/92/EEC?
Is it compatible with Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive for a Member State to restrict the scope of the exemption for "insurance ... transactions" to supplies made by persons permitted to carry on insurance business under the law of that Member State?
Do Articles 8(1) and (2), 8a(1), 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty, as well as the provisions of the directives referred to in the same grounds, and any other apparent Community directive relating to the free movement of persons and the freedom to provide services and the Community principle of equality which derives from Article 7 of the EEC Treaty, preclude a provision of a national law which requires the national court to order - unless there are compelling reasons, in particular of a family nature - the expulsion for life of a national of another Member State on grounds of public policy and public security, on the sole ground that that national has committed an offence in the host State where he was lawfully present for tourism purposes, where such expulsion makes it legally impossible for the person concerned to return to the country - unless authorization is granted after three years at the discretion of the Minister of Justice - to carry on the activities provided for in the above-mentioned provisions of Community law, and where a national of the host State who has committed the same offence may be liable to the same term of imprisonment, but no other similar measure, such as a ban on residence, which is provided for only as an optional penalty in addition to a criminal sentence of imprisonment, in particular for drug trafficking?
Can such a measure be regarded as contrary to the community principle of proportionality, in view of the fact that these offences are, according to the national legislation, simple offences punishable as stated in the grounds of the judgment of referral, whereas the expulsion ordered by the national court is an expulsion for life with the simple possibility for the Minister of Justice to authorise, after three years, the return of the person concerned to the host country?
Must Directive 69/335/EEC, and in particular Articles 4(a), 5(1)(a), 7 and 10(a) thereof, be interpreted as prohibiting where the law of a Member State imposes a tax on the formation of a public limited company at the rate of 1 % applicable in any event to the nominal value of the share capital, even if that capital has not been paid up in full, from subsequently applying a tax at the rate of 0.5 % on the contribution of the part of the capital which remains to be paid up?
Does Directive 69/355/EEC apply to merger/take-over transactions and, if so, is the levying by a Member State of a proportional charge on the drawing-up of registration certificates following a merger/take-over transaction compatible with the prohibition laid down by Article 10 of the Directive, and, if not, is it covered by the provisions of Article 12?
Does the restriction in Article 10 of Directive 69/335 also apply if the second tax is not levied specifically on the contribution of capital, but on the document by which that contribution is formalised, where such an instrumental form is required under domestic company law and the rate of 0.5% applies precisely to the amount of the contribution made in instrumental form?
Does Directive 69/335 have a direct effext and what are its effect and its possible precedence over the national legislative provisions, when it is not possible to interpret the latter in such a way as to make them compatible with the said Directive?
Does Directive 79/409, allow a Member State to, on a decreasing basis and for a limited period, authorize the capture of certain protected species in order to enable bird fanciers to stock their aviaries, where breeding and reproduction of those species in captivity are possible but not yet practicable on a large scale by reason of the fact that many fanciers would be compelled to alter their installations and change their habits?
Is it compatible with Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 6 of Directive 75/117/EEC to apply, to a claim for equal pay for equal work without discrimination on grounds of sex, a rule of national law which limits a claimants entitlement to arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior to the date on which the proceedings were instituted, in circumstances where  that rule of national law applies to all claims for equal pay without sex discrimination, but to no other claims?
Does Directive 79/409 allow the capture of protected species with a view to obviating, in bird breeding for recreational purposes, the problems of consanguinity resulting from too many endogenous crossings?
Is it compatible with Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 6 of Directive 75/117/EEC to apply, to a claim for equal pay for equal work without discrimination on grounds of sex, a rule of national law which limits a claimants entitlement to arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior to the date on which the proceedings were instituted, in circumstances where rules which are in this respect more favourable to claimants are applied to other claims in the field of employment law, including claims in respect of breach of the contract of employment, racial discrimination in pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and sex discrimination in matters other than pay?
Is it compatible with Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 6 of Directive 75/117/EEC to apply, to a claim for equal pay for equal work without discrimination on grounds of sex, a rule of national law which limits a c;laimants entitlement to arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior to the date on which the proceedings were instituted, in circumstances where the national court has no discretion to extend the two-year period in any circumstance, even where a claimant was delayed in bringing her claim because her employer deliberately misrepresented to her the level of remuneration received by men performing like work to her own?
How should the expression "similar domestic actions" be interpreted in the case of a claim for equal pay in circumstances where the conditions laid down by national legislation implementing the principle of equal pay differ from those laid down by other national legislation in the field of employment law, including legislation relating to breach of the contract of employment, racial discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages, and sex discrimination in matters other than pay?
Does an obligation to affix specific distinctive signs to products which are subject to a tax levied on them, on account of the environmental damage which they are deemed to cause, constitute a technical specification within the meaning of Directive 83/189/CEE?
Is the national enactment introducing an obligation to affix specific distinctive signs to products which are subject to a tax levied on them, on account of the environmental damage which they are deemed to cause, a technical regulation within the meaning of  Directive 83/189/CEE?
Does it follow from the interpretation of Article 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3677/86  that the six-month period laid down therein may not be extended?
Do Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68 prohibit a clause of a collective agreement applicable to the public service of a Member State which has no regard to previous periods of comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State?
Must the six-month period laid down in Regulation No 3677/86 be extended in accordance with the general rules on extensions laid down in Article 27 of that Regulation and Article 14(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85?
Is an article of a collective agreement null and void if it is found to be incompatible with Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68?
Is Council Regulation No 1114/88 valid in so far as it provides that, where the maximum guaranteed quantity for the production of leaf tobacco throughout the Community is exceeded, the intervention prices and premiums are to be reduced in a general and indiscriminate manner, irrespective of whether a producer has exceeded the quantity laid down?
Are Regulations Nos 1251/89 and 1252/89 valid as regards the fixing of the maximum guaranteed quantities for the Tsebelia variety of tobacco for the 1989 harvest, and is their application contrary to the general principles of the non-retroactivity of Community acts, of the legitimate expectations of producers and purchasers/processors of tobacco and of legal certainty, as laid down in the Crispoltoni judgment (C-133/93)?
In view of the Commissions finding discussed in the present case, is Commission Regulation No. 2046/90 valid and can we request the application of clause 8, paragraph 2, of the cultivation contracts concluded on the basis of Commission Regulation No. 4263/88?
Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 in conjunction with Annex I mean that water - apart from old water - is to be recognized as being natural mineral water only if it has properties favourable to health which must be demonstrated?
If it is decided that the Regulations 1114/88, 1251/89 and 1252/89 are valid, who is ultimately liable for the refund of the premium for the portion from which it was deducted?
May the properties favourable to health also ensue from the absence or low content of the constituents referred to in paragraph 1(a) of Section I of Annex I of Directive 80/777/EC ?
What is the relation between the expressions properties favourable to health in paragraph 2 of Section I of Annex I and certain effects in paragraph 1(a) of Section I of Directive 80/777/EC ?
Is the effect of the terms of Articles 4(2a) and 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as inserted by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 with effect from 1 June 1992, to remove from the scope of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 a benefit which prior to 1 June 1992 would have been accepted, in the case of a person who by reason of previous occupational activity was or had been covered by the social security legislation of the relevant Member State, as falling within the scope of Article 4(1), with the consequence that a person who after 1 June 1992 becomes entitled to such a benefit under the legislation of one Member State may not rely on the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 in order to challenge a withdrawal of entitlement on the sole ground that the person resides in the territory of another Member State?
Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 made within the powers granted by the Treaty of Rome (1957), and in particular by Articles 51 and 235 of that Treaty?
Are the definitions in the Second Directive 79/32/EEC, as they stood on 14 May 1990, to be interpreted as meaning that a pack containing 25 g of fine-cut smoking tobacco divided into 30 rolls of industrially manufactured tobacco of uniform dimensions, consistency and general characteristics from roll to roll is to be classified as cigarettes (or possibly as smoking tobacco),  knowing that each roll of tobacco is 68.6 mm long and consists of approximately 833 mg of fine-cut smoking tobacco wrapped in a film of cellulose pressed into a thin sheet and the wrapper is so porous that the roll of tobacco cannot be smoked as it is, but must be put into a cigarette paper tube or wrapped in ordinary cigarette paper, which in either case can be done without the aid of instruments?
Is Regulation 1531/88 valid?
Is an undertaking entitled under Community law to compensation for any loss suffered  as a result of an infringement of Community law by a Member State arising from the fact that an authority with the power to take a final administrative decision on the classification of a tobacco product in a particular tax group has taken a decision which is contrary to Article 3(1) of Directive 79/32/EEC, and what, if any, are the conditions under which administrative liability may be invoked?
Do the Act of Accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria, Articles 39 and 40 of the EEC Treaty, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and/or Commission Regulation (EC) No 3300/94 preclude levies on normal transitional stocks of sugar?
Are the definitions of manufactured tobacco products in Directive 79/32/EEC correctly implemented in a Member State if the relevant national authority is empowered by law to lay down provisions laid down by the European Communities, but no rule of law has been laid down pursuant to the law?
Is a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of the Association and is he legally employed there if he has been authorized to pursue paid employment with an employer in the Member State only temporarily and only for the purpose of preparing for work with a subsidiary company of his employer in Turkey?
Can a claim under Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 be opposed as an abuse of law if the Turkish worker has expressly declared his intention of returning to Turkey after preparation for the work there and the competent authority has authorized him to reside in the country temporarily only in view of that declaration?
Is it relevant to the assessment of administrative liability that the definitions in the Tobacco Directive (79/32/EEC) have not been implemented in the Member State, given that in the present case the national administrative authority referred to the definitions in its decision and that the parties to the main proceedings agree that the definitions contained in the Directive are immediately applicable?
Does it matter for the examination of administrative liability that the authorities refused to suspend the execution of the decision taken by the competent authority, as invited by the applicant, in order to limit the extent of the losses suffered or to be suffered by the latter?
Does the provisional validity of a restrictive agreement concluded before entry into force of Regulation No 17/62,  duly notified to the Commission before 1 November 1962, expire only when the Commission takes a positive or a negative decision regarding that agreement?
Does Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC preclude a Member State from levying a tax at a fixed rate, the basis of assessment of which is: the turnover tax payable in respect of supplies or other services provided to the person liable for payment on behalf of his business by other entrepreneurs, with the exception of the turnover tax payable in respect of transfers of undertakings, and the turnover tax payable by the person liable for payment on the importation of goods on behalf of his business or on intra-Community acquisitions on behalf of his business?
Does an agreement concluded before entry into force of Regulation No 17/62 duly notified to the Commission remain provisionally valid even when its terms were subsequently altered?
Does Article 33of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC preclude a Member State from levying a tax at a fixed rate, the basis of assessment of which is: the turnover tax payable in respect of supplies or other services provided to the person liable for payment on behalf of his business by other entrepreneurs, with the exception of the turnover tax payable in respect of transfers of undertakings, and the turnover tax payable by the person liable for payment on the importation of goods on behalf of his business or on intra-Community acquisitions on behalf of his business?
Does Article 39 of Community Regulation No 2210/78 of 26 September 1978 between the EEC and the Algerian Republic apply to  an algerian citizen having her residence in France, as regards entitlement to the disabled adults allowance, even though she has never been in paid employment but will eventually, in December 1997, receive a pension as a housewife?
Where, by contract, an undertaking (the supplier) situated in Member State A entrusts to another undertaking (the distributor) situated in Member State B the distribution of its products in a territory outside the Union, must Article 85(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community be interpreted as prohibiting, in the said contract, the provisions prohibiting the distributor from making any sale in a territory other than the contractual territory, and therefore from making any sale in the Union, both by direct marketing and by redispatch from the contractual territory?
Is Article 85(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as being inapplicable where the supplier also distributes its products in the territory of the Union through a selective distribution network which has been the subject of an exemption decision pursuant to paragraph 3 of that article?
Do Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty and Regulation No 123/85 preclude the application of national case-law on unfair competition under which a selective distribution system, even if enjoying exemption under those provisions, is not enforceable against third parties unless it is impervious?
Does the Community legal order allow Member States to provide for temporary derogations from the entry into force of directives (for example Directive 93/37) when the latter specify an express deadline?
Under which conditions does the Community legal order allow Member States to provide for temporary derogations from the entry into force of directives (for example Directive 93/37) when the latter specify an express deadline?
Is it contrary to principles of Community law applicable to measures taken by national authorities for the recovery of an unduly paid Community subsidy, for domestic legislation to permit unduly paid Community subsidies not to be recovered, on the basis, assuming that the recipients good faith is established, of criteria such as loss of enrichment, where the recipient had already, at the time when the subsidy was granted, passed on the pecuniary advantage resulting from it by paying the target price provided for under Community legislation and any right of recourse against his suppliers would be worthless?
Do registration charges on raising of capital fall within the scope of Directive 69/335 so that these charges are effectively precluded from National legislation?
Is a measure whose purpose is to put an end to infringements of a trade-mark right under national law as an immediate provisional measure and its adoption is made on grounds of urgency, the opposing party is summoned and is heard if he appears before the court,  the decision adopting the measure is reasoned and given in writing following an assessment by the judge, an appeal may be lodged against the decision, and although the parties remain free to initiate proceedings on the merits of the case, the decision is usually accepted by the parties as a final resolution of their dispute, is to be regarded as a provisional measure within the meaning of Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement?
Does Article 41 of Directive 92/50, if that directive has not been transposed by the end of the period laid down for that purpose, mean that the appeal bodies of the Member States having competence in relation to procedures for the award of public works contracts and public supply contracts may also hear appeals relating to procedures for the award of public service contracts?
Do Articles 48, 59, 60, 62, 86, and 90 of the Treaty concerning freedom of movement for workers, freedom to provide services and competition preclude national legislation under which any activity as an intermediary between supply and demand in employment relationships is prohibited unless carried on by public placement agencies?
Which broadcasters come within a Member States jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 2(1) of  Directive 89/552?
Does Regulation No 1408/71 apply to a compensation scheme under which agricultural workers, whose contract of employment has been terminated as a result of the setting aside of land belonging to their former employer, receive a benefit in the form of a single payment, the amount of which is determined solely by the age of the recipient and which must be repaid if the recipient is reemployed by his former employer within 12 months following the termination of his contract of employment?
Does a benefit which takes the form of a single payment to agricultural workers whose contract of employment has been terminated as a result of the setting aside of land belonging to their former employer may be classified as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68?
Does Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC cover an authorization by the Council to introduce special measures for derogation from Directive 77/388/EEC in order to prevent tax avoidance which apply the cost to the taxable person within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC as the minimum basis of assessment also where the agreed consideration represents the market rate but is less than the minimum basis of assessment and there is therefore no tax avoidance?
Can a Member State invoke special measures under Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC as taxation rules applying to a taxable person, if the Council decision authorizing the measures was not published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and the authorization procedure under Article 27(2) to (4) of Directive 77/388/EEC was not notified - after its completion - in official publications of the Member State?
How, if at all, would the answers given to the questions referred in the case of Snares v Adjudication Officer (Case C-20/96) which led to the conclusion that on a proper construction of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1247/92, read in conjunction with Annex IIa, DLA falls within the scope of that provision and is therefore a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result that the position of a person who, after 1 June 1992 when Regulation No 1247/92 entered into force, satisfied the conditions for the award of that benefit is governed exclusively by the system of coordination established by the said Article 10a. and confirmed the validity of Article 10 of the said regulation, differ in the case of a claimant entitled under the legislation of a Member State to attendance allowance as an employed or self­employed person under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of Point 11 of Section O of Annex VI to that Regulation?
Is Article 76(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, in conjunction with Article 398 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, a legal basis for granting the authorisation attached to the status of authorised consignor, or is that authorisation governed exclusively by Article 398 et seq. pursuant to Article 76(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code?
Does Article 398 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 preclude the granting of authorisation as an "authorised consignor" where it is no longer possible to exempt the person concerned from the obligation to present the goods to customs, as provided for in that provision, because the goods have already been presented to customs?
Does the use which the combined provisions of Article 10(1) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1722/93 prescribe for processing products falling within CN code 3505 10 50 constitute a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20( (1) and (2) of Regulation No 2220/85, compliance with which must be proved within the time limit laid down in Article 28(2) of Regulation No 2220/85, failing which the security lodged will be forfeited in accordance with Article 22(1) and (2) of that regulation?
In case of a negative answer to the first question, can it be inferred from the applicable Community law that there is a time limit before the expiry of which proof must be furnished that the processing products have been used in accordance with the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1722/93, with the result that the security is forfeited in whole or in part if such proof is furnished late?
Is Article 95 of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the application of a method of determining the administrative power of vehicles which results in a higher administrative power being conferred on certain vehicles and thus in consumers being diverted from them, where the vehicles in the most heavily taxed categories are exclusively imported vehicles which are in direct competition with similar vehicles sold in the Member State, which are themselves placed in more favourable tax categories?
Is Article 95 of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the simultaneous use of two methods of determining the administrative power of vehicles, one of which, being more unfavourable, is applied in particular to vehicles imported from other Member States and has the effect of diverting consumers in the Member State concerned from those vehicles to similar vehicles sold in that Member State?
Do the principles of non-discrimination, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty, of the right of movement and residence of citizens of the Union, within the meaning of Article 8a of the Treaty, and of the freedom to provide services, within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty require that a citizen of the Union who is a citizen of one Member State and is resident in another Member State be granted the right to request that criminal proceedings against him be conducted in another language, when nationals of that State who are in the same situation enjoy that right?
Do products composed of ingredients identical to those contained in Sargenor, Lysivit, Sarvit or Dynamisan, and in the same proportions, fall under Chapter 30 of the CN (Regulation 2658/87) and consequently under Regulation No 1010/86?
Does a situation such as in the main proceedings constitute a justified restiction on the freedom of establishment under Article 52 of the EC Treaty?
If the requirement such as in the main proceedings constitute an unjustified restriction under Community law, does Article 5 of the EC Treaty require a national court to interpret the relevant national legislation, so far as is possible, so as to comply with Community law, even though neither Company A, Company B nor Company C is itself seeking to exercise any rights under Community law, and even if an interpretation of national legislation which would comply with Community law would have the effect of giving relief where the business of Company C consisted mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries established outside the EC/EEA?
Is a Member State prohibited from refusing a Turkish national who falls within the personal scope defined in Article 2 of Decision 3/80 a family benefit provided for by its legislation on the grounds that he does not have a residence authorization or a residence permit ?
Does a Turkish national who resides in the territory of a Member State have the status of a worker within the meaning of Article 2 in conjunction with Article 1(b) of Decision 3/80 during the periods in which the legislation of that State favours him by deeming him to have paid compulsory statutory pension insurance contributions relating to periods of child-rearing?
Does a Turkish national who resides in the territory of a Member State and who, in addition to his studies, has a work permit and is employed there under a contract of employment as an auxiliary worker for not more than 16 hours per week, have the status of a worker within the meaning of Article 2 in conjunction with Article 1(b) of Decision No 3/80, or, in any event, on the basis of the fact that he/she is covered against accidents at work by the statutory accident at work insurance?
Is it  contrary to the principle of equal pay for men and women established by Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and by Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117 for an employee to be refused travel concessions for an unmarried cohabiting same-sex partner where such concessions are available for spouses or unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting partners of such an employee?
For the purposes of Article 119 EC does discrimination based on sex include discrimination based on the employees sexual orientation?
For the purposes of Article 119 EC, does discrimination based on sex include discrimination based on the sex of that employees partner?
Assuming that the refusal of travel concessions for an unmarried cohabiting same-sex partner where such concessions are available for spouses or unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting partners of such an employee are contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty, does an employee, to whom such concessions are refused, enjoy a directly enforceable Community right against his employer?
Is the refusal of travel concessions for an unmarried cohabiting same-sex partner where such concessions are available for spouses or unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting partners of such an employee  contrary to the provisions of Council Directive 76/207?
Is it open to an employer to justify such refusal if he can show that the purpose of the concessions in question is to confer benefits on married partners or partners in an equivalent position to married partners and  that relationships between same-sex cohabiting partners have not traditionally been, and are not generally, regarded by society as equivalent to marriage; rather than on the basis of an economic or organizational reason relating to the employment in question?
Are Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions contained in Article 4(a) and (c) respectively of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 are incompatible with them where certain periods of work are not taken into account when calculating a pro rata temporis WAO benefit granted to migrant workers?
Should Article 40 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, and in the light of the reasoning used by the Court in inter alia Case C-272/92 Spotti v Freistaat Bayern  and Case 225/85 Commission v Italy, be interpreted as precluding a host Member State from refusing to extend the residence permit and the benefits arising from such security of a Moroccan national whom it has authorised to enter its territory and to take up gainful employment there, for the entire period during which he has that employment there?
If the answer to the first question is positive, does the fact that the length of the applicants employment is subject to a de facto time-limit by the operation of the immigration laws of a Member State and in the instant case is being terminated by the national authoritys decision not to extend the applicants leave to remain in the Member State constitute discrimination in relation to such "working conditions" on grounds of nationality where the national authority could not impose such a de facto time-limit and or forced termination of employment upon its own nationals?
If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, does Article 40 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement require the Member State to grant the Moroccan worker leave to remain for the duration of his lawful employment?
Must Article 2(1) of Council Regulation No 1697/79  be interpreted as meaning that the option of post-clearance recovery concerns only those cases in which a difference in amount has arisen, to the exclusion of erroneous declarations of tariff heading which have no pecuniary implications?
Are the words legally due in Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 to be interpreted as meaning that it is the factual and legal circumstances existing at the time when the competent authorities receive a declaration containing an incorrect tariff heading which are decisive with regard to the existence of an amount which should have been recovered or at the time when they realise the mistake ?
What is the legal effect of a decision of the European Commission, taken on a referral from the Customs Code Committee and addressed to a Member State following a request by that State for a decision from the Committee as to whether remission of import duties is justified in certain specified circumstances, and in which the Commission and the Committee declare that it is not justified to grant remission of the import duties referred to in the Member States request to the Committee?
Is it compatible with the legal effects described in the answer to Question 3a that a court of the Member State concerned should rule by way of judgment that the necessary legal basis for the post-clearance recovery of import duties does not exist?
Is Regulation No. 1191/69, as amended by Regulation No. 1893/91, and in particular the combined provisions of Articles 4 and 1(3), to be interpreted as allowing a transport undertaking to obtain the cancellation of any part whatsoever of its service obligation, for example only of a particular part of a single route?
Does the right contained in Regulation No. 1191/69 for the undertaking to obtain a partial cancellation of his service obligation also entail that the competent authority is limited or prevented from exercising its power under national law to withdraw the transport licence for the purpose of rationalisation of the service, in so far as this is made necessary by the aforementioned partial withdrawal?
Does a condition that maternity pay, beyond the Statutory Maternity Pay, is paid only if the woman states that she intends to return to work and agrees to be liable to repay such maternity pay if she does not return to work for one month on the conclusion of maternity leave infringes the prohibition of unfair and or unfavourable treatment of  women because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity and or sickness in relation thereto under EC law in particular Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and/or Council Directive 75/117 /EEC and/or Council Directive 76/207 /EEC and/or Council Directive 92/85/EEC?
Does a condition that where a woman, who is absent on paid sick leave with a pregnancy related illness, gives birth during such absence, her maternity leave may be backdated to the later date of either six weeks before the expected week of childbirth or when the sickness leave began infringes the prohibition of unfair and or unfavourable treatment of  women because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity and/or sickness in  relation thereto under EC law in particular Article 119 of the Treaty of  Rome and/or Council Directive 75/117 /EEC and/or Council Directive 76/207 /EEC and/or Council Directive 92/85/EEC?
Does a prohibition on a woman, who is unfit for work for any reason whilst on maternity leave, from taking paid sick leave, unless she elects to return to work and terminate her maternity leave infringes the prohibition of unfair and or unfavourable treatment of women because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity and or sickness in  relation thereto under EC law in particular Article 119 of the Treaty of  Rome and/or Council Directive 75/117 /EEC and/or Council Directive 76/207 /EEC and/or Council Directive 92/85/EEC?
Does a condition limiting the time during which annual leave accrues to the statutory minimum period of 14 weeks maternity leave and accordingly excluding any other period of maternity leave infringes the prohibition of unfair and/or unfavourable treatment of  women because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity and/or sickness in  relation thereto under EC law in particular Article 119 of the Treaty of  Rome and/or Council Directive 75/117 /EEC and/or Council Directive 76/207 /EEC and/or Council Directive 92/85/EEC?
Does a condition limiting the time in which pensionable service accrues during maternity leave to when the woman is in receipt of contractual or statutory maternity pay and accordingly excluding any period of unpaid maternity leave infringes the prohibition of unfair and/or unfavourable treatment of  women because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity and/or sickness in  relation thereto under EC law in particular Article 119 of the Treaty of  Rome and/or Council Directive 75/117 /EEC and/or Council Directive 76/207 /EEC and/or Council Directive 92/85/EEC?
Do Directive 73/183/EEC, the Directive 89/646/EEC, Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 73b of the Treaty of Maastricht preclude national legislation which, in the case of the provision of financial collateral in a Member State B different from a Member State A, requires the conclusion of an agreement between a credit institution or insurance undertaking located in Member State B of the European Community and a credit institution or insurance undertaking located in Member State A?
Is Article 5(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 to be interpreted as meaning that the name of an EEIG may consist, in addition to the supplementary words European Economic Interest Grouping or EEIG, solely of elements descriptive of the object of the undertaking, where national law precludes the use of such a name in the case of the formation of a European Economic Interest Grouping?
Does the intervention of a Member State in that it still requires approval by its authorities of plant protection products marketed in another Member State constitute an infringement of the rules on the free movement of goods within the Community, as defined by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?
Does Directive 77/187 apply to the case where a company in liquidation transfers all or part of its assets to another company which then notifies orders to the employee which the company in liquidation says must be carried out?
Are national provisions which exclude an institution responsible for benefits in a Member State within the meaning of Article 93(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408 from being subrogated to the rights of the person entitled to benefits to compensation against the person responsible for an accident occurring in the territory of another Member State, or which exclude the enforcement of those rights by that institution, contrary to the right of recourse of the institution responsible for benefits against the third party where those provisions are applicable in the Member State whose institution is responsible for benefits?
Is the fourth indent of Article 1(3) of Regulation No 343/94, the second subparagraph of Article 1(1)(c)(2) and Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 465/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 610/94, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 40(3) of the EEC Treaty and Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 441/88?
Are the fourth indent of Article 1(3) of Regulation No 343/94 and Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 465/95, as amended by Regulation No 610/94, contrary to the principle of legitimate expectations?
Are the fourth indent of Article 1(3) of Regulation No 343/94 and Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 465/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 610/94, contrary to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 822/87?
Is Article 39(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 contrary to the principle of proportionality, insofar as that provision lays down the quantity that each producer must deliver for distillation?
Is the fourth indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 441/88 contrary to Article 39 of Regulation No 822/87 in that the Commission has identified the production regions with the territories of the Member States without taking into account the characteristics of the various regions within a country?
Is Article 1st of Regulation No 3151/994 contrary to Article 39 of Regulation Ni 822/87 and the principle of proportionality?
Can the terms special circumstances and error of the competent authorities, which appear in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79, respectively, be interpreted as meaning that, considered separately or in conjunction with each other and with any other provisions or principles applicable to the matter under consideration, they also cover the case where the importer, acting in good faith, has taken delivery, after release by the customs authority, of products imported from a non-member country and released them for free circulation without paying the countervailing charge provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92, where that failure to pay is attributable to the fact that the competent customs authority was unaware of the Regulation?
Are the time limits set out in Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89, are they time limits in the sense that their non-observance removes the right of the the right of the customs authority to proceed with the entry in the accounts and recovery of the countervailing charge? Furthermore, except in the case of exceptional circumstances or cases of force majeure, the fact that more than five that months have passed since the customs authority became aware of the the customs authority became aware of the situation and was able to calculate the amount of the claim be considered as exceeding the reasonable time reasonable time within which it should have acted?
Does the countervailing charge apply only to fresh table cherries or also to cherries for industrial processing?
Does the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty precludes a Member State from requiring a legal person established in another Member State, who has brought before one of its own courts an action against one of its own nationals or a company established on its own territory, to lodge security for the costs of those proceedings where no such requirement can be imposed on legal persons established in the first-mentioned State?
Are Article 30 or Article 59 of the EC Treaty or Directive 89/552/EEC to be interpreted as preventing a Member State from taking action against television advertisements which an advertiser has broadcast from another Member State ?
Are Article 30 or Article 59 of the EC Treaty or Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 to be interpreted as precluding application of the national legislation prohibiting advertisements directed at children?
Is it contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty and to Directives 75/117 and 92/85 for national legislation to provide that a pregnant woman who, before the beginning of her maternity leave, is unfit for work by reason of a pathological condition connected with her pregnancy, as attested by a medical certificate, is not entitled to receive full pay from her employer but benefits paid by a local authority, when in the event of incapacity for work on grounds of illness, as attested by a medical certificate, a worker is in principle entitled to receive full pay from his or her employer?
Is it contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117 for national legislation to provide that a pregnant woman is not entitled to receive her pay from her employer where, before the beginning of her maternity leave, she is absent from work by reason either of routine pregnancy-related minor complaints, when there is in fact no incapacity for work, or of medical recommendation intended to protect the unborn child but not based on an actual pathological condition or on any special risks for the unborn child, while any worker who is unfit for work on the grounds of illness is in principle entitled thereto?
Is it contrary to Directives 76/207 and 92/85 for national legislation to provide that an employer may send home a woman who is pregnant, although not unfit for work, without paying her salary in full when he considers that he cannot provide work for her?
Is a pension fund, responsible for managing a supplementary pension scheme set up by a collective agreement concluded between organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector and to which affiliation has been made compulsory by the public authorities for all workers in that sector, an undertaking within the meaning of Article 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty?
Does Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty, Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and Article 85 of the Treaty prohibit a decision by the public authorities to make affiliation to a sectoral pension fund compulsory at the request of organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector?
Do Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty preclude the public authorities from conferring on a pension fund an exclusive right to manage a supplementary pension scheme in a given sector?
Does Article 95 of the EC Treaty preclude a Member State from introducing and levying a consumption tax in so far as the taxable amount and the procedure for collecting the tax are different for domestic products and for products imported from other Member States?
Does Directive 85/337 permit Member States to waive the obligations concerning environmental impact assessments in the case of projects listed in Annex I if: the projects have already been the subject of a consent granted prior to 3 July 1988?
In the absence of an established vendor within the community, does the expression "established within the Community" used in Article 3(1)(6) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC refer only to the seller or also to the manufacturer and/or packager?
Must the increase of the price CAD (cash against documents) provided for in Article 1(3) of Regulation No 738/92 be applied whenever it is agreed that the price for imported goods is payable on a date more than 30 days after their arrival in the customs territory of the Community, even if the difference between the price for deferred payment and that for payment CAD is greater, in percentage terms, than the increase to be applied ?
Must Articles 48, 51, 52 and 59 of the Treaty that before 1 July 1982 [before Regulation No 1390/81 entered into force] be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot not require nationals of another Member State who are pursuing the same professional activity as self-employed persons on their territory and in their home Member State, where they were habitually resident and subject to the social security scheme, to pay contributions to the social security scheme for self-employed persons, particularly since such contributions could not entitle them to any additional social security cover?
Does Article 4 of Regulation No 3820/85 exempt from the scope of Regulation No 3821/85 vehicles belonging to private companies engaged in the collection and treatment of waste which transport waste skips or industrial waste, including cases where such transport is effected over long distances?
May Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 be relied on by a worker against the Member State of which he is a national where he has resided and been employed in another Member State?
Do Articles 7 and 48 of the Treaty or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 preclude a Member State from levying, on a worker who has transferred his residence in the course of a year from one Member State to another in order to take up employment there, greater social security contributions than those which would be payable, in similar circumstances, by a worker who has continued to reside throughout the year in the Member State in question, where the first worker is not also entitled to additional social benefits?
If the imposition of a heavier contributions burden is in principle incompatible with Community law, can it be justified by the fact that it stems from legislation whose objective is to simplify and coordinate the levying of income tax and social security contributions; by difficulties of a technical nature linked to the adoption of other methods of collection; or by the fact that in certain circumstances other advantages relating to income tax may offset or outweigh the disadvantage as to social contributions?
In assessing whether the burden of social security contributions borne by a worker who has transferred his residence from one Member State to another in order to take up employment there is heavier than that borne by a worker who has continued to reside in the same Member State, must account be taken only of income arising from employment excluding other income, such as income arising from real property?
What should the national court do should it find that the contested national legislation is incompatible with Article 48 of the Treaty, given that the infringement would be the result of the combined application of different statutory provisions and there are several ways of remedying the infringement, none of which appears entirely satisfactory?
Must Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as covering benefits which are paid by a Member State, in the form of non-compulsory national subsidies, to workers from the time at which they are laid off to the time at which they attain retirement age?
If the answer is in the affirmative: Does Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71 require the national subsidy granted by the Member State to be assessed in accordance with Article 46 of the Regulation?
If the national subsidy granted by the Member State is to be assessed in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71: Does the first sentence of Article 12(2) of the Regulation per­mit a pension paid by another Member State to be deducted?
If a deduction in accordance with the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Regu­lation No 1408/71 is permissible: Is such deduction limited by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71?
Does Article 6 of the First Directive (68/151/EEC) preclude the legislation of a Member State from restricting to members or creditors of the company, the central works council or the companys works council the right to apply for imposition of the penalty provided for by national law in the event of failure by a company to fulfil the obligations regarding disclosure of annual accounts laid down by the First Directive?
Is Article 6 of the First Directive (68/151/EEC) is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to have direct effect in the domestic legal order of a Member State?
What consequences, as regards the maintenance of the residence and work permit, do interruptions of legal residence or periods of employment without a work permit have on rights which have already arisen under Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, if such periods of unauthorized residence or employment are not assimilated to periods of regular employment under Article 6(2) of the Decision?
Does a Turkish worker who holds a work permit and a residence permit entitling him to work as a specialist cook belong to the regular labour market of a Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the decision 1/80  when from the beginning of his stay in that Member State, he knew that a residence permit was granted to him only for a total period of validity of three years and only for the purpose of pursuing a specific activity with a designated employer?
In case of an affirmative answer to te second question, does the power conferred by article 6, paragraph 3, of Decision 1/80 give Member States the right to create rights of residence that do not grant the benefit of article 6, paragraph 1, of the decision from the beginning?
Does Directive 91/414 allow a Member State to permit the placing on the market of a plant protection product imported from another EEA State or from a third country because the Member State considers that product to be identical to a master plant protection product which has already been authorised by that Member State pursuant to Article 4(1) or 8(2) of the Directive, without any analysis of the actual contents of the imported product prior to placing on the market if if the active ingredient and formulation of the imported product is manufactured by the same company (or by an associated undertaking or under licence) as the active ingredient of the master product and is the same within variations accepted by the relevant registration authority to have no material effect on the safety of humans, domestic animals, livestock, wildlife or the environment?
Does Directive 91/414/EEC permit a Member State to allow a plant protection product imported from another EEA State or from outside the EEA onto the market as identical to a master product without any analysis of the actual contents of the imported product prior to placing on the market?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 9.2 of Directive 91/414/EEC permit a Member State to allow a plant protection product imported from countries outside the EEA onto the market when the importer or person placing the product on the market is a person without a permanent office within the EEA?
Is Article 9 of Regulation No 3677/86 invalid, in so far as it makes recourse to equivalent compensation subject to the condition that the equivalent goods must fall within the same subheading of the Common Customs Tariff as the import goods, on the ground that it infringes the basic regulation, in particular Article 2(1)(a) and the first sentence of Article 2(2)?
Is Article 9 of Council Regulation 3677/86 of 24 November 1986 invalid, when it makes the classification of equivalent goods conditional on the classification of the goods in question in the same tariff subheading as the imported goods, even though such a condition entails disproportionate effects for economic operators, violating the principle of proportionality?
Is Article 9 of Council Regulation 3677/86 valid, having regard to the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty?
Is it consistent with the provisions of the First Directive 68/151 for a company to be entitled to rely against a third party, with whom a manager who is in principle competent to represent the company has concluded a legal act on behalf of the company, on the lack of competence of that manager on the ground that the latter had an interest contrary to his own in respect of that legal act?
How is an electrical apparatus, which constitutes an "uninterruptible power supply" consisting, on the one hand, of a cabinet containing a rectifier/charger, an inverter and a static bypass switch, and, on the other, of a cabinet containing a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery, to be classified according to the Combined Nomenclature (Regulation No 950/68) , as well as tariff subheadings 84.53.B, 85.01.B.II and 85.04.B.I?
Is the exception contained in Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 applicable to the public road passenger services run by the County Council exclusively through a company wholly owned by the County Council?
According to Article 14(5) of Regulation  3820/85, each driver assigned to a service referred to in paragraph 1 must carry an extract from the duty roster and a copy of the service timetable. Is it sufficient for the extract from the duty roster to cover only the journeys made on the day in question?
Is Article 78(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that the determination of the legislation applicable to the granting of benefits is final even where the right to an orphans pension, which was initially acquired in the Member State competent under that legislation (in this case the State of residence), has subsequently disappeared owing to the occurrence of an age limit, whereas in another Member State to whose legislation the insured person was subject, an entitlement to an orphans pension would still exist after that date if Article 79 of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 were applied, or is there a change in the applicable legislation in such a case in accordance with Article 78(2)(b)(ii) of the said regulation?
Is the prospect of receiving an orphans pension such as in the main proceedings also form part of the social security benefits which orphans may not lose as a result of the fact that the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain on social security has become inapplicable as a result of the entry into force of that regulation?
Does Articles 6, 59, 60 or 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty preclude the application of national legislation on taxation of capital life assurance on insurance premiums paid by policyholders resident in the Member State under life assurance policies contracted with insurers who are established in another Member State and who are operating in the first mentioned Member State in accordance with the rules on cross-border insurance activities, if the tax on the aforementioned insurance premiums can, upon application to the tax administration, be reduced to zero or by 50% in the event that the insurance company established abroad is subject to revenue tax in the State in which it is domiciled that is comparable to the tax charged on domestic savings policies in the other Member State?
Has Regulation No 3330/91, in so far as it requires Member States to collect from each undertaking exceeding the exclusion, assimilation and simplification thresholds provided for, a detailed declaration of all its intra-Community imports and exports, introduced a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade in goods between Member States prohibited by Articles 30 and 34 of the Treaty establishing the EEC?
Is the obligation to provide the data required under the INTRAST AT collection system both in the country of origin of the exported goods and in the country of destination, which is punishable under the national legislation of the Member State in the event of refusal to transmit the information requested to the central statistics and economic studies service, an unjustified measure of constraint on economic operators which is disproportionate to the general interest pursued and is therefore contrary to Article 3B(3) of the Treaty?
If the employer is not established in the Member State in which the employee is resident and is solely represented in the State by way of the said employee work, is it the guarantee institution in the country where the employer is established or where the employee is resident which, on the employer insolvency, according to Article 3 of Directive 80/987/EEC is to guarantee payment of the employee outstanding claims resulting from the employment relationship in question?
Does Article 6 of the EC Treaty on the principle of non-discrimination preclude a Member State A from requiring security for the costs of legal proceedings by a national of another Member State B who is also a national of a non-member country, who has brought before one of its civil courts an action in his capacity as a shareholder against a company established in that Member State A, even though such a requirement is not imposed on its own nationals who are not resident and have no assets there?
Do Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty preclude the Member States from adopting measures contrary to Directive 91/156 during the period prescribed for its transposition?
Is a substance listed in Annex I to Directive 91/156/EEC which is incorporated, directly or indirectly, in an industrial production process a waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that Directive?
Is stamp duty, which has such characteristics as in the present case, to be regarded under Article 33 of the abovementioned Sixth Directive (77/388/EC) as a turnover tax and is it possibly covered by the exception under Article 378 of the Annex 1 or any other provision of Community law?
Does Article 46(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 require the competent institution, when determining the theoretical amount of the pension on the basis of which the pro rata pension is calculated, to take into account a supplement intended to bring the pension to the level of the statutory minimum?
Does Article 5 of Regulation No 1576/89 allow for the generic term "whisky" to be included in the sales description of a spirit drink consisting entirely of whisky diluted with water, so that the alcoholic strength by volume is less than 40%?
Does Article 22(3)(c) of the Sixth Directive authorize Member States to regard a credit note issued by the recipient of goods or services as a document serving as an invoice?
Can a taxable person who has not contested the mention, in a credit note serving as an invoice, of an amount of VAT greater than that owed by reason of taxable transactions be regarded as the person who has mentioned that amount, and is consequently liable for the amount stated, within the meaning of Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive?
Can the recipient of a credit note, in the circumstances set out in Question 2, rely on Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive if the value added tax mentioned in the credit note is claimed from him as a tax debt to the extent of the difference between the tax mentioned and the tax owed by reason of taxable transactions?
Is determining processing costs reasonable only if the resulting value of the temporarily exported goods corresponds approximately to the purchase price paid by the holder of an outward processing authorization or to the production costs, according to Article 13(2) of Regulation No 2473/86?
According to Article 13(2) of Regulation No 2473/86, in determining the processing costs can reference be made to the purchase price for the inputs inclusive of uplifts paid by the processor to the holder of an outward processing authorization, and does that apply equally where there is a tariff anomaly resulting in a higher rate of duty for the unprocessed goods than for the compensating products?
Does the expression sonst zerkleinert (otherwise crushed) in subheading 0904 20 of the Combined Nomenclature resulting from Regulations No 3174/88 and No 2886/89 cover only peppers of a fineness comparable to that of powder or also a product cut into pieces measuring between 4 and 8 mm?
Does Article 9(2)(e) of Title VI of the Sixth Directive include the services of an arbitrator ?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude the application of social security rules under which reimbursement of the cost of benefits is subject to authorisation by the insured persons social security institution if the benefits are provided in a Member State other than the State in which that person resides?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude the application of such social security rules if the aim of the rules is to maintain a balanced medical and hospital service accessible to everyone in a given region?
Do Articles 6 and 48(2) of the EC Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring persons working in its territory but residing in another Member State to contribute to a social security scheme of the care insurance type while excluding payment of benefits thereunder in the Member State in which those persons are resident?
Does Article 59 of the EC Treaty preclude national legislation which prohibits an undertaking holding a port terminal concession from having recourse to work done by other undertakings?
Does Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty, preclude national legislation which gives rise to arrangements in the market whereby users may have contractual relationships only with the terminal operator for the whole range of services which they need when visiting a port in which the terminal operator or operators hold a dominant position in the market?
Do Articles 59 and 90, in combination with Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in any event preclude a national provision which authorizes an undertaking operating in a port to provide services limited to the mere supply of labour to other undertakings operating in that same port, and in particular to undertakings holding concessions for a port terminal?
Does Article 2(5) of Regulation No 797/85 permit Member States which introduce a register intended to determine eligibility under the system of aids established by Directive 72/159 to refuse to register certain legal persons solely by reason of the legal form they have assumed and to introduce a special system of identification by creating a specific register intended for natural persons alone?
Does Article 4 of Protocol No 3 annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community prohibit the deportation from Jersey of nationals of a Member State other than the United Kingdom?
Does Article 4 of Protocol No 3 annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community limit the reasons for which a national of a Member State other than the United Kingdom may be deported from Jersey to those justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health?
Does Article 4 of Protocol No 3 annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community prohibit the Jersey authorities from deporting a national of another Member State when the public policy considerations relied upon by those authorities would not in practice entail the deportation of that person from the United Kingdom?
Do transactions for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency constitute supplies of goods or services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive?
If there has been a supply of goods or services effected for consideration, what is the nature of the consideration in relation to such transaction?
Must the list of fish species under headings No 03.02 A.I and No 03.02 A.II of Regulation No 3796/81, Annex VI, be interpreted as illustrative so that the dried fish ling, the scientific name of which is Molva molva, is to be classified under those headings?
If the Court holds that list to be exhaustive, does Article 20 of Regulation No 3796/81 (exemption from import duties) apply only to the three sub-species of cod referred to ("Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac") to the exclusion of other sub-species such as "Molva"?
Must Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79, giving debtors the right to benefit from the fact that the competent authorities may refrain from taking action for the post-clearance recovery of duties, be applied also where the customs authorities failed to collect the relevant duties on account of an error, having regard also to the conduct of the alleged debtor who had observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in force as far as his customs declaration was concerned?
Does the suspension of customs duties as provided for in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 3416/91, in respect of imports from Spain, for the benefit of the agricultural products listed in the Annex to Regulation No 3835/90, also apply to imports from that country of tuna in olive oil?
May the competent customs authorities (pursuant to Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1697/79 and Article 2 of implementing Regulation No 2164/91) initiate action for the recovery of customs duties which were not collected at the time of importation because they were regarded as having been totally suspended as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the Community legislation in force – which subsequently proved to be due on the basis of a different interpretation provided by the Commission –, where:
- the person liable observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in force as far as his customs declaration was concerned; and 
- it does not appear that that person was aware that the interpretation initially given to the Community legislation by the Italian authorities was erroneous?
Is Decision 2000/196, Article 1 of which opposes the placing on the Community market of stevia] as a food or food ingredient, also binding on a company which is currently marketing it in the Community?
Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 apply at all to a person who, before the regulation became applicable in Member State A, moved from Member State B to Member State A and took up employment here, but who was not in employment in Member State A when the regulation came into force in Member State A and did not come here as an unemployed person after the regulation became applicable in Member State A, but only stayed here at that time as an unemployed person after a previous period of employment and then drew Member State A unemployment benefit? That is to say, can a person in that situation claim that, after 1 January 1994, on the basis of Regulation No 1408/71, he or she is covered by Member State As legislation as regards entitlement to Member State As social security benefits in the form of parental benefit?
Is Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, in conjunction with Article 10b of Regulation No 574/72, to be understood as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from introducing a condition of residence in its territory in order for a person who has ceased working there to remain covered by that countrys legislation as regards cash maternity benefits?
Is Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 to be understood as meaning that, if a person begins to draw cash maternity benefits in a competent state, that person retains entitlement, on the conditions applying according to that article, to those cash benefits when moving to another Member State only on condition that the person concerned satisfies all the provisions of the legislation applied by the competent country, that is to say including the requirement, laid down in those provisions, that the person concerned must be resident in its territory, or is Article 22 to be interpreted as meaning that such entitlement exists so long as the person concerned fulfills all other conditions of the national legislation of the country which he or she leaves, apart from the residence requirement?
Is the requirement of a national certificate of conformity declaring that the motor family to which the vehicle in question belonged satisfied the conditions specified in national law compatible with the provisions of Directive 70/156/EEC, as worded in its latest version?
If so, is the requirement of the national certificate in question compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome, or does it constitute a "measure having equivalent effect"?
If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes" and the answer to Question 2 is that the measure must be regarded as a "measure having equivalent effect", can the insistence by Member State that such a certificate should be produced be maintained on the basis of Article 36? (i.e. justified)
Should Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 90/394 be interpreted to the effect that the employers obligation to reduce and replace carcinogens and to avoid or reduce exposure to them is contingent on the outcome of the assessment of risks referred to in Article 3; if so, is national legislation requiring the employer to reduce or replace carcinogens and/or to avoid or reduce workers exposure to them irrespective of an assessment of risk contrary to that directive?
Is a Member State precluded by the principle of proportionality and Article 4 of Directive 89/655 from prescribing a period of three months for adapting existing work equipment, with criminal penalties for an employer who does not comply with such a prescribed period ranging up to imprisonment for three to six months?
Must Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 90/394 and the corresponding articles in the national decree be interpreted to the effect that they require employers and the other persons referred to in Article 6 of that decree to reduce the benzene content in petrol to a level lower than that set by Directive 85/210 and to the even lower levels set by the national decree, where that is technically possible?
Does the supply of counterfeit perfume products fall within the scope of Directive 77/388/EEC?
Is a statutory tax on the net assets of companies with share capital which has effects economically equivalent to those of an indirect tax on capital contributions compatible with Community law and in particular with Directive 69/335/EEC?
Does it follow from the judgment in C-389/92 (BNG I) that Directives 71/304 and 71/305 are to be interpreted as meaning that the authority competent to decide on an application for registration submitted by a dominant legal person of a group is under an obligation, where that person is established as having actual power of disposition over the resources of the companies belonging to the group necessary for performing works contracts, to take account of those companies?
Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted that there is an abuse of a dominant position where an undertaking which carries on the publication, production and marketing of daily newspaper and with its products occupies a predominant position on the national market, refuses to make a binding offer to another undertaking engaged in the newspaper market?
Is it contrary to Regulation 2328/91 or Directive 75/268 to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer whose home is not the farm?
Is it contrary to the principles of legal certainty to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer whose home is not the farm?
Is it contrary to the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality to exclude from the compensation in question a farmer who lives for the greater part of the year in another MS?
Having regard to Articles 11(b) and 12 of  Directive 69/335/EEC, is the national duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment of loans in conformity with Community law?
Does the obligation to give mandatory labelling particulars, instructions for use and guarantee certificates for products at least in the language or languages of the area in which those products are placed on the market constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189 which, on that basis, should have been notified to the Commission?
May Member States require, and if so to what extent, information appearing on imported products to be given in the language of the area in which those products are sold or in another language which may be readily understood by consumers in that area?
Do Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty preclude national legislation which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be approved and brought into force by the State on the basis of proposals submitted by a central committee the majority of whose members are representatives of the economic operators concerned and which extends the mandatory tariffs applicable in the road-haulage sector to other types of contracts, relating to different services?
Does the concept of "general interest" referred to by the Court of Justice in the judgments in c-85/91 Reiff and c-153/93 Delta correspond to the concept of "public interest" mentioned by the Court, in a similar legal situation, in the judgment in c-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto v Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo?
Is that concept "general interest" and/or "public interest" defined by Community law or left to the competence of the individual Member States?
Are specific criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in force under national law, in accord with the public interest within the meaning of the judgment in c-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto?
Is the fact that it is possible for collective agreements to be concluded which under national law are enforceable against operators which have not signed them, as is the case with those in question in the main proceedings, liable to constitute a breach of Article 85 of the Treaty?
Does Kashkaval in Regulation 1767/82 refer solely to cheese made from sheeps milk?
Does an IMA 1 certificate issued pursuant to Regulation 1767/82 but completed in a manner contrary to the instructions set out in the annexes to that regulation satisfy the requirements of Article 2 of that regulation, and, if not, does this result in forfeiture of entitlement to a reduced rate of import levy?
For the purposes of the application of the exception provided for in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 3821/85, does a passenger transport service, supplied on a number of occasions pursuant to a block reservation made by a tour operator and providing for a single journey from an airport to a hotel with a stop, on occasions, at a tourist attraction, where the precise route to be taken is not predetermined, constitute a regular service within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3820/85?
If the answer to Question 2 is yes, is Article 4(3) of Regulation 3820/85 to be construed so that the distance of "the route covered by the service in question" is to be calculated by reference to each component part of the drivers journey during the day or the aggregate of such component parts?
Does a carriage of passengers such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitute an occasional service within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 684/92?
Is the expression "price discounts and rebates allowed to the customer and accounted for at the time of supply" in Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EC to be interpreted to cover the whole cost of the redemption goods?
Upon a proper construction of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EC), must the application by an oil company of goods which are disposed of to a purchaser of fuel in exchange for vouchers which he has obtained in varying quantities, depending on the volume of fuel purchased, on payment of the full retail price for fuel from the pump be treated as a supply for consideration within the meaning of that provision?
If the answer to question 3 is "No", is the United Kingdom entitled pursuant to Article 27 of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EC) and under the derogation obtained by it in 1977 to impose an output tax charge on the promoter which is based on the cost to the promoter of the redemption goods in addition to the output tax included in the full retail price of the premium goods?
Is an action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, against the person whom the plaintiff considered to be the actual maritime carrier, based on the contract of transport and does it fall within the scope of matters relating to contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the matter one relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention or is it appropriate to have recourse to the principle laid down in Article 2 of the Convention that the courts of the State in whose territory the defendant is domiciled have jurisdiction?
In the event that the matter is to be regarded as one relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, may the place where the consignee, after completion of the transport operation, merely discovered that the goods delivered to him were damaged, constitute the "place where the harmful event occurred" within the meaning of the Courts judgment in Case 21/76 (Mines de Potasse dAlsace), and of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting State, before the court hearing an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in the territory of any Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is indivisible, rather than merely displaying a connection?
Does a national provision relieving only one undertaking of the obligation of complying with the generally applicable legislation concerning fixed-term contracts constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty?
Is it contrary to Article 30, in conjunction with Article 36, or Articles 85 to 86, of the EC Treaty or to Directive 92/100/EEC for the holder of an exclusive rental right to prohibit copies of a film from being offered for rental in a MS even where offering those copies for rental has been authorised within another MS?
In view of the fact that Directive 89/104 contains a transitional legal provision only for the purpose of the case described in Article 5(4), are Member States otherwise free to lay down rules on the matter?
Does the use of a trade mark, without the proprietors authorisation, in order to inform the public that another undertaking carries out repairs and maintenance of goods covered by that trade mark or that it has specialised, or does a specialist in such goods constitute a use of that mark for the purposes of one of the provisions of Article 5 of Directive 89/104?
Do Articles 5 to 7 of Directive 89/104 entitle the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent another person from using that mark for the purpose of informing the public that he carries out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by a trade mark and put on the market under that mark by the proprietor or with his consent, or that he has specialised or is a specialist in the sale or the repair and maintenance of such goods?
Does national legislation prohibiting the keeping of any species of bee on an island such as Laesoe other than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Laesoe brown bee) constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and if so, may such legislation be justified on the ground of the protection of the health and life of animals?
Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Directive 76/768/EEC preclude a national provision which, as regards advertising in connection with the marketing of cosmetic products, contain prohibitions going beyond the restrictions contained in the directive?
Is the position taken by the national VAT Authorities, that the limitation period for the collection of tax runs from the 20th of the month following the quarter in which registration for VAT took place, as regards taxable transactions carried out before that registration, compatible with Articles 4 and 10 of the Sixth VAT Directive?
Does a system under which VAT on a benefit in kind granted to an employee of an undertaking is calculated on a VAT inclusive basis when national VAT is paid by the employer and on a VAT exclusive basis when VAT of another MS is paid infringe  Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome and the principle of "fiscal neutrality" laid down by the Sixth VAT Directive?
Does Community law (and in particular Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) preclude national measures which, in order to ensure the protection of the designation of origin Gorgonzola, prohibit the distribution of blue cheese under the name Cambozola even where the packaging of the product in question indicates its true origin?
Where a person has worked and been habitually resident in one MS, has then exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers to move to another MS, and finally returns to the first MS in order to seek work, is it compatible with the requirements of Article 48 of the Treaty for the first MS to impose a condition of habitual residence in that MS (involving the existence of an appreciable period of residence in that State) on entitlement to a general non-contributory means-tested State benefit with the characteristics of British income support?
Must Article 31(1)(a) of Directive 93/16/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the specific training in general medical practice cannot begin until after the person concerned has obtained, after at least six years study, the diploma referred to in Article 3?
Does the nature of the activities that the candidate must pursue in the course of his specific training in general medical practice in implementation of Article 31(1)(d) of Directive 93/16 imply that he should have obtained a basic diploma referred to in Article 3 before embarking on that training?
Is an organisation such as the Institute a non-profit-making organisation with aims of a trade-union nature within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Directive?
Does Directive 69/335 preclude the levying of registration duty where companies are acquired by another company which already holds all their stocks and shares?
Must the system of calculation deriving from heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation 1408/71 be considered contrary to Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty?
Must the basis for determining the Member State As pension be calculated by reference to what would have been the basis for the migrant workers contributions if he had stayed in Member State A during the calculation period preceding materialisation of the risk provided for on a general basis by Member State As legislation?
Does Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings?
Does Article 17 of the Convention necessarily require that the consent of the parties to the jurisdiction be established?
In which countries must a usage found to exist, by which process does in come into being, in which forms must it be published and which consequences are to be drawn as ot the existence of a usage in the area?
What is specifically required for there to be a form which accord within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention (must the jurisdiction clause be contained in a written document, bearing the signature of the party accompanied by refernce to the clause, must the clause stand out prominently from other clauses and must its language be related to the nationality of the parties)?
Which party must be aware of the usage, is his nationality relevant in this regard, what degree of awareness must the party have, must any publicity be given to the standard forms containing jurisdigtion and, if so, to what form?
Are there, under Art. 17 of the Convention, any limitations as to the choice of Court, is it necessary for the parties to choose a court having some link to the case, may the court seised review the validity of the clause and the intention of the party which inserted it and does the fact that the substantive provisions applicable before the chosen court tend to reduce that partys liability affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause?
Do Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and Directive 87/328 allow a national authority to require authorisation for insemination operations using bovine semen, that is to say, the collection, handling and distribution of and insemination with semen, in the way indicated in the order for reference?
Do Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and Directive 87/328 allow a MS to prohibit or subject to conditions the insemination and breeding of cattle liable, according to a national authority, to entail suffering for animals or affect their natural behaviour, or using a certain breed which is regarded by a national authority as having genetic defects?
Does interpretation of the preamble to Directive 87/328 allow national exceptions to acceptance for artificial insemination in its territory with respect to animals with an undesirable pedigree, even where those exceptions entail a prohibition in relation to animals which fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 2 of the directive? If so, can the individual MS be left to define "impairment of the pedigree" and "hereditary defects"?
Does an award of compensation for breach of the right not to be unfairly dismissed under national legislation such as the Employment Protection Act 1978 constitute "pay" within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty?
If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", do the conditions determining whether a worker has the right not to be unfairly dismissed fall within the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty or that of Directive 76/207?
What is the legal test for establishing whether a measure adopted by a MS has such a degree of disparate effect as between men and women as to amount to indirect discrimination for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty unless shown to be based upon objectively justified factors other than sex?
Must the legality of a rule of the kind at issue be assessed as at the time of its adoption, the time when it entered into force or the time when the employee is dismissed?
What are the legal criteria for establishing the objective justification, for the purposes of indirect discrimination under Article 119 of the Treaty, of a measure adopted by a Member State in pursuit of its social policy?
Does the concept of "work" in Article 14a(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71 refer to any work, whether paid employment or self-employment, the duration of which does not exceed 12 months?
Does the E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Articles 11a and 12a(7) of Regulation 574/72, bind both the competent institution of the MS in which the work assignment is carried out and the person who calls upon the services of self-employed persons holding that certificate?
If so, what is the duration of the binding effect of that certificate?
Does Form E 101 have retroactive effect in so far as the periods to which it relates have already come to an end at the time when the form is issued or produced?
In the light of Article 132(1) and Article 227 of the EC Treaty, is Article 7(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the importation into the Netherlands of a ship which was previously in free circulation in the Netherlands Antilles is to be regarded as the entry into the Community of a product which does not fulfil the conditions of Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty?
Does Directive 76/207/EEC require Member States to introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to ensure judicial protection for workers whose employer, after the end of the employment relationship, refuses to provide references as a reaction to proceedings brought to enforce compliance with the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of the Directive?
Does Directive 76/207/EEC require the Member State to introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable a complainant to pursue a claim by judicial process where certain circumstances apply?
Does Directive 76/207/EEC require the Member State to introduce into their legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable persons to pursue a claim by judicial process where circumstances other than in the first question apply?
Does the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 64/427, which refers to the taking up "or pursuit of any activity referred to in Article 1(2)" and to "the fact that the activity in question has been pursued", also cover the situation where a Community national has pursued simultaneously in the MS from which he comes more than one activity falling within the scope of this directive and applies to establish his business in another MS, continuing the simultaneous pursuit of those activities, having regard to Article 52 of the Treaty?
Is the application to an undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty of a system of the kind introduced by the national law in question, and derogating from the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency, to be considered capable of giving rise to the grant of State aid which is prohibited by Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty or Article 92 of the EC Treaty?
May the words "undertaking to which he is normally attached" in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71 be supplemented by other terms or conditions not expressly mentioned therein?
What are the criteria for determining that an undertaking engaged in providing temporary personnel normally carries on its activities in the MS in which it is established and does such an undertaking satisfy that condition?
If and to what extent is a certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of one MS, within the meaning of Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation 574/72, binding on the social security institutions of another MS?
Is it contrary to Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty for a MS to refuse to register a branch of a company formed in accordance with the legislation of another MS in which it has its registered office but where it does not carry on any business when the purpose of the branch is to enable the company concerned to carry on its entire business in the State in which that branch is to be set up?
Does Community law preclude a national rule which makes the validity of an agency contract conditional upon the commercial agent being entered in the appropriate register?
Is the Community law at hand to be interpreted as meaning that the terms other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature and other organisations recognised as charitable by the MS concerned exclude from that exemption natural persons running a business?
Is a decision taken by the organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector, in the context of a collective agreement, to set up in that sector a single pension fund responsible for managing a supplementary pension scheme and to request the public authorities to make a affiliation to that fund compulsory for all workers in that sector contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty?
Does Articles 3(g), 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty prohibit a decision by the public authorities to make affiliation to a sectoral pension fund compulsory at the request of organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector?
Is a pension fund, responsible for managing a supplementary pension scheme set by a collective agreement concluded between organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector and to which affiliation has been made compulsory by the public authorities for all workers in that sector, an undertaking within the meaning of Article 85 et seq. of the ECTreaty?
Does Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty preclude the public authorities from conferring on a pension fund an exclusive right to manage a supplementary pension scheme in a given sector?
Does the refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to cover an existing foreign-currency debt  constitute a restriction on the movement of capital and payments compatible with Article 73b of the EC Treaty?
Are the provisions concerning the freedom to provide services to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from prohibiting the operator of a boat harbour, on pain of criminal prosecution, from renting more than a specific quota of moorings to boat-owners who are resident in another Member State?
Must a prohibition which is contrary to the freedom to provide services, laid down before a Member States accession to the EU not by a general abstract rule but by a specific administrative decision that has become final, be disregarded when assessing the validity of a fine imposed for failure to comply with that prohibition after the accession?
Is Directive 83/189/EC to be interpreted as meaning that breach of the obligation imposed by Article 8 thereof to notify a technical regulation on breath-analysis apparatus has the effect of making it impossible for evidence obtained by means of such apparatus, authorised in accordance with regulations which have not been notified, to be relied upon against an individual charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol?
Do the provisions of Directive 80/1263 preclude the driving of a motor vehicle by a person who is not a citizen of the EU but who holds a national driving licence or a Community model driving licence issued by a MS and who could have obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for it, but did not do so within the prescribed period, from being treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine?
Is a national of a non-member country who holds a valid Community model driving licence issued by one MS, who has taken up normal residence in another MS, but who has not exchanged his driving licence within the one-year period prescribed by the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 80/1263, is entitled to rely directly on Articles 1(2) and 8(1) of Directive 91/439 in order to challenge the imposition, in the MS in which he has established his new residence, of a term of imprisonment or a fine for driving without a licence?
Must the term "discharge" in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464/EEC be interpreted as covering precipitation of contaminated steam on to surface water? Is the distance from which the steam in question is precipitated on to the surface water relevant in that respect?
Is the term "discharge" in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 to be interpreted as covering the emission of contaminated steam which is first precipitated on to land and roofs and then reaches the surface water via a storm water drain? Is it material in this respect whether the drain in question belongs to the establishment concerned or to a third party?
If Questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the negative, is it permissible for national legislation to assign a different, more wide-ranging meaning to the term "discharge" than that in the directive?
Is Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC to be interpreted as including the pollution from significant sources?
Is Article 5 of Directive 86/280/EEC to be interpreted as including the escape of escape of creosote from wood placed in surface water?
Is Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464/EEC  to be interpreted as including the placing by a person in surface water of wooden posts treated with creosote?
Is it permissible,in the light particularly of Article 5(2) and Article 10 of Directive 76/464/EEC for a MS to give a different, more wide-ranging meaning to term discharge than that in the Directive?
Does Directive 76/464/EEC hand permit MS to make the authorisation of a discharge subject to additional requirements not provided for in the Directive?
Do the limitative conditions in category 32 of Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976  preclude a competent authority of a Member State,when assessing applications for authorisation concerning the introduction into surface water by professional users of wood treated with creosote oil,from applying assessment criteria such as to make that use impossible or possible only in quite exceptional cases
Is Article 99 of the Act of Accession to be interpreted as referring also to goods originating in non-member states which have been in free circulation in another Member State of the European Community and are imported from there into Finland?
Does the provision contained in the Collective Agreement of an Autonomous Organisation of Member State (A) which requires, for pursuit of the profession of restorer, prior validation of the academic qualification obtained in another Member State (B) - such validation involving a comparison of the study programmes in Member State (A) and in the other MS (B) and the passing of theoretical and practical tests in the subjects in the Member State (A) programme of studies which do not appear in the programme of studies of the other MS (B) - infringe the right to freedom of movement for workers?
Must Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335/EEC be construed as authorising duty to be charged on the transfer of shares, irrespective of whether the company which issued those shares is admitted to trade on a Stock Exchange and irrespective of whether the share transfer is effected through the Stock Exchange or directly between the transferor and the acquiring party?
Does a student exchange of approximately six months or one years duration, the purpose of which is to attend an educational establishment in a foreign country and familiarise himself with the people and culture of that country by staying free of charge with a local family as a family member fall, wholly or in part, within the scope of  Directive 90/314/EEC?
Are certain characteristics which indicate the non-commercial nature of the organiser of the exchanges, such as the facts that participants in the exchange programme are only required to pay part of the costs of the programme, that the exchanges are devised by way of collaboration between non-profit-making associations in various countries, and that they rely largely upon voluntary work and are financed with public funds set aside for cultural activities, relevant to the question whether the student exchanges fall within Directive 90/314/EECs scope?
In the event that the student exchanges do fall with the general scope of Directive  90/314/EEC: Is a long-term stay, free of charge, with a family, where the guest is treated almost like a child of the family, to be considered accommodation within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b)?
In the event that the student exchanges do fall with the general scope of Directive  90/314/EEC: Are the training of the students and their parents, the selection of the host families and educational establishments in the host country and the preparation of documentation relating to the host country to be considered other tourist services within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c)?
Is it compatible with Directive 73/239, as amended by Directive 92/49, and Directive 79/267, as amended by Directive 92/96 for national legislation to prescribe that, so far as an insurance companys free assets are concerned, the insurance company may not, without special administrative authorisation, own more shares in a domestic or foreign joint-stock company than corresponds to 5% of the votes attached to all the shares?
Are Article 18(1) of Directive 73/239, as amended by Article 26 of Directive 92/49, and Article 21(1) of Directive 79/267, as amended by Article 27 of Directive 92/96, sufficiently precise and unconditional to be relied upon before the national court and to render a rule of domestic law contrary to them inapplicable?
Is Article 49(1)(b)(ii) and Article 45 of Regulation 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned fulfils the conditions laid down by one legislation for entitlement to an old-age pension, albeit a limited one, without having recourse to periods of insurance completed under another legislation whose conditions of pension entitlement are not satisfied, the competent national authority is nevertheless obliged to take into account periods completed under the latter legislation where that could result in the award of a greater old-age pension up until such time as the conditions laid down under the latter legislation are fulfilled?
Does the definition of "standard tanks" in Article 112(2)(c) of Regulation 918/83, as amended by Regulation 1315/88, apply to tanks fixed to containers equipped with a refrigeration system and intended for long-distance road haulage where those tanks have been permanently fixed by one of the manufacturers dealers or by a coachbuilder in order to attain certain financial objectives?
Is it compatible with Article 119 of the EC Treaty that, owing to lack of child-care facilities, it is predominantly women who have to terminate their employment relationship in order to take care of their children and that such women, despite fulfilment of additional conditions, receive no more than half of the termination payments which would be due in respect of the actual period of their employment, whilst men remain credited with the full period for the purpose of such payments?
Is it relevant that in in the Member State in question most nurseries are State-run or State-aided?
Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 4(4) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that the derogations for which they provide apply to collective redundancies occurring on the same day as that on which the employer files a winding-up petition and terminates the undertakings activities, and the competent court subsequently issues a winding-up order which takes effect for a number of purposes from the date on which the petition was filed?
Do Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty preclude a MSs legislation under which undertakings established in that MS and exploiting proprietary medicinal products there are charged a special levy on their pre-tax turnover during the last tax year before the enactment of that legislation and are allowed to deduct from the amount payable only expenditure incurred on research carried out in the levying MS when it applies to Community undertakings operating in that MS through a secondary place of business?
Does Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community preclude such legislation?
In the event that either of the previous two questions is answered in the negative, is the deduction which is allowed for expenditure on research carried out in the State of taxation to be considered aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?
Is Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that measures in the form of payment facilities granted by a public body such as the ONSS enabling a commercial company to retain over a period of at least eight years a proportion of the sums collected from staff and to use them in support of its commercial activities, when that undertaking is unable to obtain funding under normal market conditions or to increase its capital, are to be considered State aid?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that such aid is compatible with the common market?
Does an enforceable acknowledgment of indebtedness which has been drawn up without the involvement of a public authority constitute an authentic instrument within the meaning of Article 50 of the Brussels Convention?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Can an application for recognition of a decision or authentic instrument submitted to a court having local jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 32(2) of the Brussels Convention be rendered inadmissible or unfounded by reason of the fact that, while appeal proceedings are pending, the debtor has left the State in which the proceedings were instituted and his new place of residence is unknown?
Is the view that a national court which concludes that an applicable national provision requires a migrant workers pension to be reduced and considers that the application of that rule constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of workers may not disapply the relevant national legislation, compatible with Community law, in particular Articles 5, 48 and 51 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957) and, more specifically, the principles of free movement of workers and cooperation in good faith between the competent authorities?
Does the reduction in the retirement pension required by  the national law, in a situation such as that of the Engelbrechts, constitute an obstacle to the free movement of workers or does it result from the disparities between the two Member States social security schemes?
When, for the purposes of applying a provision of domestic law, a national court has to characterise a social security benefit awarded under the statutory scheme of another MS, and concludes that its own legislation cannot be interpreted, in the light of the aims of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty, in such a way as to avoid the adverse effects for the migrant worker of the lack of coordination between national social security schemes, is the court required to disapply its national legislation?
Must Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation 3665/87, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation 1615/90, be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result, in particular, of force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the MS of export, the exporter is obliged to repay the export refunds paid in advance?
Do the general principles of Community law, and, in particular, those relating to force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity, entitle exporters of beef from the UK to retain any export refunds paid in advance where exports from the UK to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239, bans on the importation from the UK have been imposed by third countries, exporters were in the process of carrying goods to third countries at the time when the Decision was adopted, those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the UK, and the exporters suffered loss?
Are either or both of Decision 96/239/EC or Regulation 773/96/EC unlawful to the extent that they do not provide for exporters in the circumstances referred to in Question 2 above being entitled to retain export refunds applicable to the exports in question or any portion thereof?
Does a judgment delivered in the State of origin in the context of a court-supervised liquidation and which is not open to recognition under the national law of the State in which enforcement is sought, but which, in the State in which it was given, confers on one of the parties immunity from execution of the judgment whose enforcement is sought, affect the quality of enforceability which, according to the first paragraph of Article 31 of the Brussels Convention, a judgment must possess in order to be recognised and enforced?
Does a decision taken by a Member State with regard to access to employment, vocational training and working conditions in the armed forces for the purpose of ensuring combat effectiveness, particularly with regard to marine commando units,  fall outside of the scope of Community law?
Under what conditions may an exclusion of women from service in combat units be justified under Directive 76/207?
Does Directive 78/660 preclude a global provision for warranty liabilities in respect of particular contracts which arise before the date of the balance sheet but whose effects may emerge only after that date from being made in the balance sheet?
Does  Directive 78/660 lay down specific rules for provisions and does it, in particular, lay down the criteria for determining their amount?
In the case of a former frontier worker in receipt of invalidity benefit, who is resident in a MS other than that of the institution responsible for payment and whose place of residence is nearer to that institution than to the one of his place of residence, does Article 51(1) of the Regulation (574/72) preclude the competent institution from carrying out the relevant administrative checks and medical examinations without requesting that the institution at his place of residence carry out a prior examination?
In the case of determination for the first time of entitlement to benefit, does Article 40 of Regulation 574/72 preclude the competent institution from assessing the incapacity for work on the basis of its own medical examination, without a prior medical examination by the institution of the place of residence?
If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: does that also apply where the competent institution has not requested and hence not taken account of medical documents and reports and also information from the institution of the place of residence, but only apprised itself of medical information from the attending practitioner in the country where the employee is undergoing medical treatment?
Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version in Annex I to Regulation 1734/96 amending Annex I to Regulation 2658/87 to be interpreted as meaning that an article described as a junction box and consisting of a rectangular container with lid of coated die-cast aluminium with four steel connecting bolts and four earthing bolts of copper-plated steel is to be classified under heading 8538?
Must the CN be interpreted as meaning that a product such as that in issue in the main proceedings falls to be classified under heading 8536 as an incomplete junction box?
Must Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 76/207 be interpreted as meaning that exclusion by a collective agreement from entitlement to a special annual bonus provided for by that agreement of persons in employment which involves a normal working week of less than 15 hours and normal pay not exceeding a fraction of the monthly baseline and is exempt from compulsory social insurance, constitutes indirect discrimination against women, where that exclusion affects a considerably higher percentage of women than men?
Are Articles 2 and 9 of Regulation 3950/92 to be interpreted as meaning that any recipient of a delivery of milk may be regarded as a "purchaser" liable to pay the additional levy, regardless of the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of which the delivery is made and, in particular, as meaning that a group of cooperative societies may be regarded as a purchaser of the milk delivered to it (but not sold to it) by the members of that cooperative?
Is Article 2(2) of Regulation 3950/92 to be interpreted as meaning that purchasers are actually required to withhold from sums paid to producers any amount due by way of additional levy, or that they are simply entitled to do so and that that option is provided in their own interests so that failure to exercise it may not attract a penalty?
Is the regionalisation applied to Italy for the marketing year 1996/97 by Regulation 1580/96 valid in so far as it was adopted belatedly in breach of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81, there is no statement of reasons which might justify such regionalisation and the conditions for treating Italy as a deficit area were not satisfied?
Is Regulation 1785/81 valid in so far as it detracts from the principle of non-discrimination as between producers or consumers within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, for having introduced obstacles to the free movement of sugar within the Community, in breach of Articles 28 EC and 29 EC and for introducing unjustified aid for beet producers in deficit areas to be borne by sugar manufacturers?
Is national legislation governing the initial allocation of milk quotas, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted by a MS which acceded to the European Communities on 1 January 1995, compatible with Regulation 3950/92, Article 5 and Article 40(3) of the Treaty?
In order for the identification of "surface freshwaters affected by pollution" to be justified and in accordance with Articles 2(j) and 3(1) of the Directive 91/676 and Annex I thereto, is it necessary for the concentration of nitrates in excess of 50 mg/l present in those waters to be exclusively due to the discharge of nitrogen compounds from agricultural sources or is it sufficient for such discharges to make a "significant contribution" to that pollution?
Does the fact that the concentration of nitrates of agricultural origin in waters identified under Article 3(1) of the Directive 91/676, in itself, may not exceed 50 mg/l infringe the principle of proportionality, the polluter pays principle and the fundamental right to property of the farmers concerned, thereby rendering the Directive invalid?
Does Article 59 of the Treaty preclude national legislation on trade tax such as that at issue in the main action?
Can a national court request the Court of Justice of the European Communities to rule directly on whether a legislative provision of a Member State is compatible with the provisions of Article 92 of the Treaty (State aid)?
If the answer is in the affirmative: can it be argued that, by the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings, the Member State in question has granted aid contrary to Article 92 of the Treaty?
Are the freedom of establishment and free movement of capital guaranteed by the Treaty ensured by schemes, such as those under the two national laws at issue in the main proceedings, which make acquisition of land subject to prior administrative authorisation and which, in the case of one of those laws, exempt only nationals of the MS concerned from the authorisation otherwise required? If not, does Article 70 of the Act of Accession permit such national provisions?
Is it for the Court of Justice, in proceedings for a preliminary ruling, to assess whether a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious for a Member State to incur non-contractual liability vis-a-vis individuals who may be victims of that breach?
Is the principle of the liability of Member States for the damage caused to an individual by breaches of Community law complied with, on a proper interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, if the national law on liability of a MS with a federal structure lays down that in the case of infringements attributable to a part of the State, the injured party may make claims only against that part of the State, not the State as a whole?
Does it suffice for the prohibition in Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation 2333/92 to be applicable that a word in a brand name used to describe sparkling wine may be confused with part of the description of a wine not used for constituting the cuvee of the sparkling wine?
Is Directives 67/228 and 77/388 to be interpreted as authorising MS to introduce or retain general exclusions from the right to deduct VAT payable on the purchase of motor cars used by a taxable person for the purposes of his taxable transactions?
Did the authorisation granted to MS by the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Directive 77/388 lapse at the end of the four-year period referred to in the paragraph at issue in the main proceedings?
Is the defendant a "contracting authority" within the definition of the term "contracting authorities" contained in Directives 77/62 and 93/36?
Is it compatible with the applicable Community law for a branch establishment in Member State (A) of a company having its seat in another Member State (B) not to be accorded the national tax benefit in respect of dividends under a double tax agreement with a non-MS under the same conditions as for a company having its seat in Member State (A)?
Is it compatible with the applicable Community law for the tax levied in a non-MS on the profits of a subsidiary in the state of a branch establishment in Member State (A) of a company having its seat in another Member State (B) not to be credited against the Member State (A) corporation tax on that Member State (A) branch establishment under the same conditions as for a company having its seat in Member State (A)?
Is it compatible with the applicable Community law for a branch establishment in Member State (A) of a company having its seat in another Member State (B) not to be accorded national tax benefit in respect of capital tax under the same conditions ad for a company having its seat in Member State (A)?
Is the prohibition of the planting of new vines laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 to be extended to vines intended for the production of table grapes?
Do the terms "the same work" and "the same job" apply, for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive 75/117/EEC, where the same tasks are performed over a considerable length of time (several salary periods) by persons the basis of whose qualification to exercise their profession is different?
Is the National Income Tax Code, which, in applying a tax rate of 40% to the taxable income of foreign companies, imposes on foreign companies a different, heavier tax charge than on domestic companies, to which a tax rate of 35% is applied, permissible under Community law and, in particular, is it in conformity with Articles 7 and 52 of the Treaty?
Can a directive have direct effect even though its legal basis is Article 100a of the Treaty of Rome and Article 100a(4) allows Member States to request a derogation from the implementation of that directive?
Is the direct effect of a directive, where the deadline for its transposition into national law has expired, affected by the notification made by a Member State pursuant to Article 100a(4) of the Treaty of Rome, seeking confirmation of provisions of national law derogating from the directive?
Under the EEA Agreement, can an EFTA State which has subsequently become a MS of the EU be liable for damage caused to individuals by failure to transpose Directive 80/987 correctly into national law, in accordance with the principles of law laid down inter alia in Francovich?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as meaning that Directive 80/987/EEC as well as the legal principles which the Court laid down in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich prevail over domestic law if the State has not implemented the aforementioned directive in the proper way?
On the accession to the EU of an EFTA State, may individuals rely before the national courts and tribunals of that new MS on rights which they derive directly from Directive 80/987 and may that State be liable for damage to such individuals caused by failure to transpose the directive correctly when the facts at issue in the main proceedings occurred prior to the date of accession?
Does a Turkish national who, as a member of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force, has entered the country without being required under the national law in force at the date of entry to hold a residence permit, and has subsequently been in possession of residence permits, with interruptions, but who has applied for extension of his last residence permit 26 days after its expiry, satisfy the conditions, set out in the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, if the national authorities have refused to extend the residence permit?
Does a Christmas bonus of the kind at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty or Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85 even if the bonus is paid by the employer mainly or exclusively as an incentive for future work or loyalty to the undertaking or both?
Do Article 119 of the Treaty, Article 11(2) of Directive 92/85 and Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC preclude an employer from excluding women entirely from the benefit of a bonus paid voluntarily as an exceptional allowance at Christmas if, at the time of payment, they are on parenting leave, without taking account of the work done during the year in which the bonus is paid or of the periods for the protection of mothers?
Do Article 119 of the Treaty, Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85 and Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Directive 96/34 preclude an employer, when granting a Christmas bonus to a female worker who is on parenting leave, from taking periods of parenting leave and periods for the protection of mothers into account so as to reduce the benefit pro rata?
Does a situation such as that in the present case , in which the plaintiffs mother is employed by the limited company of which her husband is the director and sole shareholder, preclude a person from being regarded as a migrant worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the EC Treaty and of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68?
In the Bernini judgment (Case C-3/90)  the Court ruled that study finance awarded by a Member State to children of workers constitutes a social advantage to a migrant worker, as provided for in Article 7(2)of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, where the worker continues to support the child. In such a case the child may rely on Article 7(2) in order to obtain study finance under the same conditions as are applicable to children of national workers, and in particular without any further requirement as to place of residence.  Does this rule equally apply if the migrant worker must be regarded as a frontier worker?
Must Article 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted in such a way that the safeguard provided for under the rule laid down in Bernini (C-3/90) also applies to the child of a national of a MS who pursues activities in another MS as a self-employed person?
Does the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC preclude the maintenance in force of a charge which is payable in a federal State of a MS of the European Communities?
Does a Turkish worker who has achieved the legal status conferred by the Decision No 1/80 , forfeit that status subsequently if he is detained on strong suspicion of having committed a crime for which he is ultimately convicted and given a suspended prison sentence?
Is the expulsion of a Turkish worker in such circumstances solely on general preventive grounds, that is to say deterrent to other aliens, compatible with the Decision No 1/80 ?
Are the taxation measures described in the main proceedings contrary to Directive 92/12 and 92/81 which provides that MS are to exempt from harmonised excise duty mineral oils supplied for use as aviation fuel except for private pleasure flying?
Does Directive 92/12 and 92/81 have direct effect?
Does the concept of existing legislation, within the meaning of Article 70 of the Act of Accession, cover provisions such as the national law from 1996, which were adopted after the date of accession (1995) and which provide that legislation already in force on that date - but since declared unconstitutional and inapplicable in the proceedings in progress - which confers on administrative authorities the right to bring an action to have sales of immovable property declared void is to continue to apply to transactions concluded before accession?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation 536/93, relating to the imposition of penalties on dairies (purchasers of milk), valid?
Is Regulation 1408/71 and Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that in the case of a person who has worked exclusively in a MS and who was insured throughout that period against invalidity under a special scheme for civil servants, that period should also be taken into account in accordance with that section of the annex when determining invalidity benefits?
Does the expression "repayable funds" contained in Directives 89/646 and  77/780/EEC  refer only to financial instruments which possess the intrinsic characteristic of repayability, or does the expression also refer to those financial instruments which are the subject of a contractual agreement to repay the amount paid?
Is Directive 82/76 to be construed as having direct effect?
May a national provision which penalises abuse of rights validly be relied on to defeat an action for a declaration that social measures are invalid brought by a shareholder on the basis of breach of a right conferred by Directive 77/91/EEC?
What are the consequences of a decision upholding a plea of abuse of a right entailed as regards the validity of the ministerial decisions altering the capital of a company?
Can an individual oppose the collection of fees higher than the standard amounts listed in point 1 of the annex relating to Article 2(1) of Directive 85/73/EEC as amended by Directive 93/118/EC where the MS has not transposed the latter into national law within the prescribed period?
Can a Member State collect fees higher than the standard amounts in reliance on point 4(b) of the annex relating to Article 2(1) of Directive 85/73/EEC as amended by Directive 93/118/EC provided that the fees levied do not exceed the actual costs, no further conditions being imposed?
In cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls of fresh meat, does Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73 authorise it to collect an amount in excess of Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual figure for inspection costs incurred in the Member State as a whole or the actual figure for inspection costs incurred by the competent local authority?
What is the meaning of the expression "has a reputation" which is used, in Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104  to specify the first of the two conditions which a registered trade mark must satisfy in order to enjoy protection extending to non-similar goods or services and must that condition be satisfied throughout the Benelux countries or is it sufficient for it to be satisfied in part of that territory?
Is Article 4a of Regulation 805/68, as amended by Regulation 571/89, in conjunction with the provisions of Regulations 468/87 and 714/89 to be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to a beef and veal producers special premium for the year 1991 is transferred to a producer to whom, during the compulsory stock holding period, the applicant transferred his agricultural holding by way of anticipated succession inter vivos and who carried out the prescribed keeping and fattening of the bovine animals in question?
Does Article 7a, Article 8a of the EC Treaty or any other provision of Community law prohibit a MS from requiring a person, whether or not a citizen of the EU, under threat of criminal penalties, to establish his nationality when entering the territory of that MS by an internal Community frontier?
Does the condition that the markets between Member States be artificially partitioned, as laid down in C-427/93 Hoffmann-La Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, mean that, in order to determine whether the proprietor of trade marks may prevent a parallel importer from replacing the trade mark used by the proprietor in the exporting MS by the mark the proprietor uses in the importing MS, it is necessary to take into consideration circumstances which explain the existence and use of different trade marks or circumstances in the importing MS which make it necessary to replace the original trade mark in order for the product to be marketed in that MS by the parallel importer?
Does Article 2 of Directive 67/227 prevent a MS which has availed itself of the possibility provided for by Article 13C of the Sixth Directive, and has thus given its taxpayers the right to opt for taxation of certain lettings of immovable property, from abolishing, in a subsequent law, that right of option and thus reintroducing the exemption in full?
Is it contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty for national rules to prohibit the marketing of meat products such as those in issue in the main proceedings?
Does Article 48 of the Treaty preclude the application of a MSs legislation which grants resident married couples favourable tax treatment, yet makes the same treatment of non-resident married couples subject to the condition that at least 90% of their total income must be subject to tax in that MS or, if that percentage is not reached, that their income from foreign sources not subject to tax in that State must not be above a certain ceiling?
On a proper construction of Article 3(b) of Regulation 1768/92, can the certificate protect the product only in the specific form stated in the marketing authorisation?
What are the criteria, according to Regulation 1768/92, and in particular Article 3(a) thereof, for determining whether or not a product is protected by a basic patent?
Is national legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain goods by travellers arriving from non-member countries on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or protection of health and life of humans contrary to Regulation 918/83 and Directive 69/169?
Can the circumstances described in paragraph 18 of this judgment be such as to justify a restriction on imports of alcoholic drinks by travellers arriving from third countries?
May a national rule limiting travellers imports of alcoholic drinks, which in this question also includes beer, on the basis of the duration of the journey be regarded as compatible with the provisions of the duty-free regulation and the travel directive?
Is the Combined nomenclature (CN) at hand to be interpreted as meaning that dried walnut pieces imported from a non-member country , must be classified under "Other nuts" (tariff heading 0802) or "Fruit and nuts" (tariff heading 0811)?
Must a prohibition on issuing a summary payment order under circumstances such as those at hand be regarded as a restriction or a measure having equivalent effect of a quantitative restriction on the free movement of goods, services and capital?
May it be inferred from the mere fact that a substance such as LUWA-bottoms or wood chips undergoes an operation referred to in Annex IIB to Directive 75/442/CEE that the substance has been discarded and whether it is therefore to be regarded as waste for the purposes of that directive?
If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does the reply to the question whether the use of LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting discarding depend on whether LUWA-bottoms are commonly regarded as waste, it being relevant whether they may be recovered in an environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel without substantial processing within the meaning of Directive 75/442/CEE?
May it be inferred from the fact that the substance is treated in a manner which amounts to a common method of waste recovery that that substance constitutes waste within the meaning of Directive 75/442/CEE?
May it be inferred from the fact that a substance is produced merely as a by-product or a residue that that substance constitutes waste within the meaning of Directive 75/442/CEE?
On a proper construction of Articles 2 and 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, does the same court have jurisdiction to hear the whole of an action founded on two obligations of equal rank arising from the same contract even though, according to the conflict rules of the State where that court is situated, one of those obligations is to be performed in that State and the other in another Contracting State?
Does a system such as the system of taxation at issue in the main proceedings have discriminatory effects in regard to imported vehicles or protectionist effects in regard to similar vehicles of domestic manufacture, which are incompatible with the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty as a result of the increase in the taxs progression coefficient, in particular between the 15-16 CV band on the one hand and the bands over 18 CV, which cover imported vehicles only, on the other?
Does the application of a system of taxation such as that resulting from the 1956, 1977 and 1991 Circulars have discriminatory effects in regard to vehicles granted individual approval in the Member State in question?
If the tax is contrary to Article 95 of the EC Treaty, is it open to the owner of a vehicle with a power rating in excess of 100 kW not to pay the tax?
Does Directive 85/577 apply to a contract for the purchase of a right to use immoveable property on a time-share basis and for the provision of services whose value is higher than that of the right to use the immoveable property?
Can a contract be considered to have been concluded during an excursion organised by the trader away from his business premises within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577 if it was signed at a tourist complex of time-share apartments located in a town to which the consumer was invited and which is not the town where the trader has its registered office?
Is it sufficient, in order for a consumer to be able to exercise his right of renunciation under Article 5(1) of Directive 85/577, for the contract to have been concluded in circumstances such as those described in Article 1 of that directive, or whether it must also be shown that the consumer was influenced or manipulated by the trader?
Does Directive 85/577 preclude a Member State from adopting rules providing that the notice of renunciation provided for by Article 5(1) of the directive is not subject to any condition as to form?
Does Directive 85/577 preclude the inclusion in a contract of a clause requiring payment by the consumer of a lump sum for damage caused to the trader for the sole reason that he has exercised his right of renunciation?
Does Community law preclude a public-law body, in addition to the Member State itself, from incurring liability to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of measures which it took in breach of Community law?
If so: Where a national official has either applied national law conflicting with Community law or applied national law in a manner not in conformity with Community law, is there a serious breach of Community law simply on the ground that the official had no discretion in making his decision?
May the competent authorities of a MS make appointment, as a social security scheme dental practitioner, of a national of another MS who is authorised to practise in that MS but has none of the qualifications mentioned in Article 3 of Directive 78/686, conditional upon that persons having the linguistic knowledge which he needs for the exercise of his professional activity in the host State?
Does a rule such as that in Article 3(1) of the national legislation in question, read in conjunction with Article 2 of that national legislation, constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189 and, if so, is the MS which adopted such a rule exempt, under Article 10 of that directive, from the obligation to notify the Commission laid down in Article 8 thereof?
Do the Staff Regulations, and in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII thereto, preclude the application of rules of national law, such as Paragraph 1587 et seq. of the BGB, which provide for apportionment of pension rights between divorced spouses?
Do the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and Article 6 of the Treaty preclude the laws of a MS regulating the consequences of divorce between an official of the Communities and his former spouse from causing the official to bear a heavier burden, on account of his nationality, than would be borne by an official of a different nationality in the same situation?
Are Articles 73b(1) and 73d(3) of the Treaty, and Articles 1(1) and 4 of the Directive 88/361, to be interpreted as precluding the national law in question?
Are Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) and (3) of the Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of duty, under a provision of national law, on loans contracted in another MS?
Is the expression "place of performance of the obligation in question" used in Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention to establish special jurisdiction in contractual matters to be construed as referring to the substantive law applicable under the conflict rules of the court seized or whether it must be given an independent interpretation?
Does a national provision  under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945 (Second World War), was in employment in respect of which minimum contributions were paid under a social security scheme of the State concerned is to be deemed to have paid sufficient contributions to establish that he was normally and principally employed throughout the period between the date on which the period of employment established came to an end and 1 January 1946, but under which that presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State, constitutes a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71?
In the absence of an action for annulment within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty against Council Directives 91/680 and 92/12 in their parts relating to taxation (VAT and excise duties) on cross-Channel routes and the opening up of Eurotunnel by a decision of the High Court of Justice of 17 February 1995, is Eurotunnel entitled to seek annulment of those decisions on the basis of Article 177 of the Treaty?
Are Council Directives 91/680 and 92/2 in their parts relating to taxation (VAT and excise duties) on cross-Channel routes and the opening up of Eurotunnel valid?
In the event of annulment should SNAT be considered to be at fault for having applied tax laws adopted in application of these decisions?
Is the Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature 1994 - to be interpreted as meaning that products such as echinacea drops fall under heading 3004 - Medicaments, consisting of unmixed products prepared for therapeutic OR prophylactic purposes, put up for retail sale?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning that products such as those listed under point 1 fall under other spirit drinks of subheading 2208 90 69?
Do the combined provisions of Article 5(1) and Article 2(1) of the Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions cover dismissals resulting from absence after the end of maternity leave, where the absence is due to illness arising during pregnancy and continuing during and after maternity leave, and where the dismissal took place after the end of maternity leave?
Does the contested national legislation, in so far as the conditions set out in it are met, make the legal form of the contract of employment, which is the usual form for the provision of services by tourist guides under the conditions referred to in that article, binding on the parties, infringe Article 59 et seq. of the Treaty?
If the answer is in the affirmative, is this provision justified by reasons of general interest relating to the maintenance of social peace in the sensitive sector of tourist services, which is of reasonable interest to the Member State as a tourist country, justifying regulatory intervention?
Where the obligation to pay arising out of a contract must be performed in a signatory State (so that, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, the creditor may bring an action against the defaulting debtor before the courts of that State to enforce it, even where the debtor is resident in another signatory State), do the courts of the first State also have (direct) jurisdiction to hear an application to the courts of the second State?
Does a procedure, such as the one in the present case, fall within the scope of Article 1(4) of the Bruxelles Convention, excluding arbitration from its scope?
Is Article 24 of Bruxelles Convention applicable to the situation in the main proceedings?
Does a Turkish worker also fulfill the conditions of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council if, during the first year of employment completed with the authorisation of the national authorities, he has been employed, albeit continuously, by different employers and wishes to continue working for his last employer?
Does a taxable farmer who, in 1990, in the Land of Brandenburg in the Federal Republic of Germany, limited his potato production by refraining from harvesting at least 20% of the potatoes grown, provide a service within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Sixth Directive?
Does the aid paid under the Decree of 13 July 1990 to promote the extensification of agricultural production for the extensification of potato production constitute a taxable cash benefit under Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive?
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, should the reduced rate provided for in the fourth sentence of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive in conjunction with Annex H thereto be applied to the supply of services?
Where a worker performs his work in several States in pursuance of his contract of employment, what are the criteria, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, for establishing whether that worker habitually carries out his work in one of the States concerned?
Is Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs Tariff (Combined Nomenclature 1988 to 1991) to be interpreted as meaning that image processing, as it may be carried out with the Vista Boards, is to be regarded as performing a function of its own within the meaning of the said provision, that is to say, as having a function other than that of processing information, with the result that classification of such goods under heading 8471 is excluded?
Is heading 8543 (here: subheading 8543 8080 of Combined Nomenclature 1991, subheading 8543 8090 of Combined Nomenclature 1988 to 1990) to be interpreted as meaning that the term other electrical machines with their own function, not elsewhere specified or included in this chapter includes products such as Vista Boards, even when these can be used, by virtue of their own nature, not only for image processing, but also as graphics cards for automatic data-processing machines?
What other tariff heading is relevant to the classification of products such as the Vista Boards?
As an element of the concept of turnover tax, does the concept of passing on the tax to the consumer within the meaning of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC and other provisions of the Community legal order always and in any event presuppose that the legislation applicable to the tax expressly states that the tax may be passed on to the consumer, or is it sufficient that the tax may be passed on to the consumer, in the sense of the Sixth Directive?
Can a flat-rate charge which is high in relation to the total revenue or turnover and which takes account of that revenue be regarded as a turnover tax, even if the impact on the consumer is not expressly stated, because the transactions are automatic, carried out with coins and for a specific price?
Is such a charge incompatible with the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on value added tax, inasmuch as it infringes Article 33 of that directive?
Should Regulation 404/93 be considered valid insofar as it limits the right to import Somali bananas, i.e. the right of access to the market, as recognized by the Lome Convention of 15 December 1989, in Protocol No. 5 and in the joint declaration constituting Annex LXXIV to the Convention?
Are Regulations (EEC) Nos 1442/93 and 1443/93, as amended and supplemented by subsequent Regulations, to be considered valid in so far as they unnecessarily limit, reduce and restrict the right of access for Somali bananas as guaranteed by the Convention referred to in point 1 and by Council Regulation No 404/93?
Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding application of legislation of Member State A prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B from selling in Member State A a periodical produced in Member State B, where that periodical contains prize puzzle competitions or games which are lawfully organized in Member State B?
Do the Community law principles which result from the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning demands for reimbursement of sums unduly paid as aid, according to which the interests of the Community should be fully taken into account, preclude national law from taking into consideration, as criteria for excluding demands for reimbursement of aid unduly paid: - the good faith of the aid recipients and thus the protection of legitimate expectations; - the fact that 5 to 10 years have elapsed since the payment of the aid, and hence that it would be particularly onerous for the aid recipients to have to reimburse the aid now; - the reason for the undue payment of the aid being exceptional circumstances in the form of serious fraud and punishable offences on the part of a third party; and - the fact that - as the exporter undertakings were aware - the monitoring authority exercised day-to-day supervision at the place of manufacture, without discovering the fraud and/or taking action; - the fact that, over the whole period in which payments were made, the authority making the payment was aware that the value of the monitoring system depended on the accuracy of the information supplied by the undertaking being monitored, but despite that fact omitted to ask to see recipes or the producers accounts relating to the purchase of raw materials; where the underlying principle is that the same criteria apply in connection with demands for reimbursement of purely national aid?
Does this question need to be answered in the same way if the national law also takes into account the absence of circumstances which should have led the exporting companies to doubt that the product was eligible for refunds?
Do the principles of Community law resulting from the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the recovery of undue aid, according to which full account must be taken of the Communitys interests, preclude an exporting undertaking from being considered as having acted in good faith and therefore from being exempted from the obligation to repay aid previously granted, if it is established that the exporting undertakings did not reserve the right, by agreement with the producer, to carry out their own operations?
Can a third party, in particular the recipient of the aid, rely on any negligence on the part of the supervisory authority which, on the basis of an overall assessment of the facts of the case, would have the effect of excluding the repetition of refunds already paid?
Are Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as meaning that legislation of a Member State laying down rules for the processing of and trade in cereals, flour, bread and pasta is to be regarded as incompatible with those articles in so far as it prohibits trade in special wholemeal bread of the surge type: having a moisture content higher than the percentages referred to in Article 16, having an ash content lower than that laid down by the combined provisions of Article 16 and the third paragraph of Article 7, with added bran, since this ingredient is not specifically authorized?
In the circumstances such as in the main proceedings, can the Member State invoke the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the Treaty in order to protect public health?
Should the national court leave the national legislation in question unapplied and let the product in question benefit from the free circulation on the territory of the Member State?
In order to assess, as required by Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, whether indications intended to promote sales are of such a nature as to mislead the consumer, is it necessary to ascertain what the consumers sought actually expect, or does that rule refer to an objective concept of the consumer which requires only a legal interpretation?
If it is the actual consumer expectation that is important, the following questions arise: Is it the conception of the average informed consumer that counts or that of the superficial consumer, and is it possible to determine the percentage from which a group of consumers will serve to establish a reference consumer expectation?
In case reference is made to an objective notion of buyer requiring only a legal interpretation, how should this notion be defined?
Is the product tax on electrical energy calculated as in the present case to be regarded as a tax having the effect of a customs duty on imports within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the product tax on electrical energy calculated as described in the present case to be regarded as a discriminatory tax on the products of other Member States within the meaning of Article 95 of the EC Treaty?
Are the uniform banking conditions at issue in this case compatible with the provisions of Article 85 of the Treaty in so far as they make the granting of credit subject to a system for determining interest rates which is not fixed in advance and which the customer cannot determine?
Whether the application of the NBU (standard bank conditions) constitutes an abuse, as contemplated by Article 86 of the Treaty, of a collective dominant position by the banks belonging to the ABI (Italian Banking Association) ?
What are the consequences of the incompatibility of the practice at issue with Article 85 of the Treaty on the corresponding clauses of the current account credit opening contracts, on the corresponding clauses of the general guarantee contract and on the contracts themselves?
Do the principles of legal certainty, effective protection of the rights deriving from Community law and non-discrimination in the protection afforded to those rights, as developed by the case-law of the Court of Justice, preclude the introduction of national provisions which, being applied retroactively, have in effect replaced the ordinary limitation period (ten years) by a limitation period (five years)?
Does the principle that the procedural rules of national law for the protection of rights deriving from Community law must not be less favourable than those for similar domestic actions (judgments c-33/76 & c-45/76 (Rewe and Comet)) preclude the introduction of a national provision which is intended to unify the time limits for the reimbursement of sums paid in connection with customs operations and which in fact has the effect of extending the time limits for the foreclosure of claims whereas the analogous action for the recovery of objective undue payments under common domestic law is subject to a ten-year limitation period?
Does the principle affirmed by the Court of Justice in C-208/90 (Emmott) - on the basis of which, before the correct transposition of an EEC directive, the defaulting Member State may not plead the belated nature of a legal action brought against it by an individual for the protection of the rights conferred on him by the provisions of that directive, and that a time-limit for bringing an action under national law may not begin to run until that time - stand as an application of the principle of legal certainty, to the national court in the same way as the written rules of Community law?
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is this principle, affirmed in  C-208/90 (Emmott), constituting a concrete application of one of the fundamental principles of Community law, of direct and generative effectiveness, i.e. is it directly applicable and can it be invoked by individuals before national courts in any other case of incorrect transposition of a directive?
On a proper construction of Regulation No 123/85,  does the exemption which it grants apply to a contract which does not exemplify the objectively valid reasons for which the contracting parties may be released from the obligation not to compete, prevents the dealer from selling new cars of any other make, even at commercial premises separate from those at which the contract goods are offered for sale and imposes on the distributor a fixed sales target set by the manufacturer, failure to achieve which is penalised by alteration of the territory conceded, withdrawal of the exclusive dealership or termination of the dealership agreement?
Can Regulation No 1475/95 be interpreted as meaning that an exclusive concession contract which contains clauses such as those in the present case under Article 3(3) and Article 4(1)(3) of Regulation No 1475/95 in conjunction with Article 5(2)(2), (3) and (3) and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 1475/95 qualifies for the exemption conferred by Article 1 thereof?
If Regulations 123/85 and 1475/95 cannot be interpreted as granting the exemption provided for in them to dealership contracts such as those referred to in the present case, must Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that an exclusive distribution network of a motor vehicle manufacturer which is based, for the whole territory of a Member State, on such dealership contracts would fall within the scope of the prohibition it lays down?
What is the date as from which the periods of service of part-time workers who have suffered indirect discrimination based on sex must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the additional benefits to which they are entitled?
Where the relevant national legislation restricts back-dating entitlement in the event of a successful claim to a period of 2 years prior to the date on which the claim was made, does this amount to the denial of an effective remedy under Community law and is the national court obliged to disregard such provision in domestic law if it feels it necessary to do so?
Does Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979, which provides for a period of three years for bringing proceedings for the recovery of uncollected duties, also apply to cases which arose prior to 1 July 1980, the date of entry into force of that regulation by virtue of Article 11?
Is Article 30 of the Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the prohibition imposed by the regulations and/or administrative practice of a Member State on shipping companies established in another Member State from berthing or unberthing their vessels arriving in or departing from the ports of the first Member State, if they use the services of a local undertaking with an exclusive berthing and unberthing concession and pay that undertaking a fee disproportionate to the actual cost of the services rendered?
Do the combined provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 and Article 59 of the Treaty preclude the obligation imposed in a Member State to use the mooring service, which implies the application to shipping companies established in another Member State of tariffs fixed not by law but, in a purely discretionary manner, by the administration, when their ships arrive in the ports of the first Member State or leave them?
Do the combined provisions of Articles 3, 5, 90(1), 85 and 86 of the Treaty preclude regulations and/or administrative practice of a Member State which give an undertaking established in that State the exclusive right to provide a mooring service, a right which is so far-reaching that it makes it possible to impose the use of that service, to demand a fee which is disproportionate to the actual cost of the services and to apply tariffs resulting from agreements and/or the exercise of discretionary power by the administration and tariff conditions which vary from one port to another, even though the services are equivalent?
On an industrial site which processes beet into white sugar, where upstream plants receive the beet, process it and extract the sugar juice, and downstream plants process the juice and syrups in question into white sugar, which may be enriched by the addition of raw cane sugar from the FOD, can the said downstream plants, for the purposes of granting aid for refining the FOD sugars in question, be regarded permanently as a "technical unit" and as a "refinery" within the meaning of Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81, Article 9, and No 2225/86 referred to above?
If the first question is answered in the negative, can such a group of installations be considered as a "technical unit" and as a "refinery" within the meaning of the same regulations, on an intermittent basis and for discontinuous periods?
If the answer to the second question is yes, should these periods be limited to those when the processing of raw cane sugar into white sugar would be carried out in a way that is not concurrent with the processing of syrups extracted from beets in the upstream facilities of the same industrial site?
Is it compatible with Community law for national provisions to provide, for the bringing of an action for the protection of a right under the Community legal order, for a limitation period to begin to run before the correct and complete transposition into national law of the directive which recognised that right?
Is it compatible with the Community legal order to provide, for the compensation of a person whose rights have been infringed and who is granted reimbursement of the sums claimed, for rules of calculation which are different from and less favourable than those laid down for actions for reimbursement between private individuals, and which are determined in substance by an act of the same public authority which, by its failure to act, has infringed that right?
Are paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 95a of Regulation No 1408/71, inserted by Regulation No 1248/92, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the institution of a Member State proceeds after 31 May 1992 to the settlement of the rights of an insured person within the framework of the Regulations, it can apply, for the period ending 31 May 1992, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 (in particular Article 46) as codified by Regulation No 2001/83 and, from 1 June 1992, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended by Regulation No 1248/92?
Does a provision of national law which requires enterprises covered by a nature and archaeological reserve to refrain from any activity whatsoever in the areas concerned - a measure which, in substance, involves an expropriation of those enterprises without the provision of any compensation to the expropriated individuals - violate the fundamental rights of property, enterprise and equal treatment by the national authorities?
Do the measures provided for in the national provisions in question violate the principle of equality and the prohibition of related discrimination laid down in the second paragraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty of Rome?"
Does the principle of the free movement of workers as laid down in the Treaty of Rome and its implementing legislation precludes a tax system applicable to frontier workers in so far as it provides for different taxation arrangements for persons whose remuneration is paid by a public body and for those who are paid by private persons, and is it therefore liable to have an influence on access to public or private employment on the basis of the place of residence in one or other State?
Do the principle of freedom of movement and the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality preclude a rule whereby a frontier worker receiving remuneration from a State or a person governed by public law is taxable in that State but, if the frontier worker is a national of the other State and not at the same time a national of the first State, the remuneration is taxable in the State of which the frontier worker is resident?
Is a rule of tax law which provides for a different system of taxation for frontier workers employed by persons governed by public law and resident in one of the Member States, depending on whether they are nationals of that State or have dual nationality, compatible with Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome?
Does the principle of free movement of workers as it results from the treaty prohibit tax rules likely to influence the choice of teachers of the contracting States to work more or less permanently in another State, having regard to the differences in the tax systems of the States in question according to the duration of the employment?
Should the objective of eliminating double taxation laid down in Article 220 of the Treaty be regarded, in view of the time available to States to implement it, as now having the character of a directly applicable rule by virtue of which double taxation must no longer occur ?
Is Article 48 to be interpreted as precluding nationals of a Member State who are frontier workers in another Member State from being taxed more heavily than persons who carry on their professional activities in their State of residence because of a tax credit mechanism?
Must Community law and in particular Article 95 of the Treaty, be interpreted as precluding the introduction by a Member State of legislation which makes the reimbursement of taxes levied in breach of Community law subject to limitation or prescription periods and to conditions of proof which are different from and more restrictive than those laid down by the general rules of civil law?
Do the fundamental principles of the Community legal order, including the principle of non-discrimination, preclude a Member State from introducing special and derogatory legislation designed to restrict and limit the right to recover sums paid but not due, solely on the ground that the conditions for the repayment of tax deductions of relevance to Community law laid down in national legislation, although restrictive in relation to the general rules of ordinary law, appear to be less severe than the special conditions for repayment laid down in the national law?
Do the fundamental principles of the Community legal order preclude a Member State - following a number of judgments of the Court of Justice declaring various taxes in the field of import duties, manufacturing taxes, consumption taxes, sugar surcharges and State duties to be incompatible with Community law - from adopting procedural provisions which specifically restrict the possibility of seeking reimbursement of the above-mentioned taxes where they have been wrongly levied in breach of Community law?
Does Community law, in particular Article 95 of the Treaty, precludes a Member State from making repayment of customs duties and taxes contrary to Community law subject to a condition, such as the requirement that such duties or taxes have not been passed on to third parties, which the plaintiff must show he has satisfied?
Can a rule that imposes procedural formalities that were never provided for in the previous cases of reimbursement envisaged by the general regulations on the subject be imposed and, in any case, can it be interpreted as having a retroactive effect?
In the context of a tender for the supply of skimmed-milk powder as food aid, based on Regulations (EEC) No 345/87 and No 1358/87, and the tender security lodged in the same context in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83, may the legal person the legal person who has subsequently failed to comply with his obligations and has not carried out the delivery, be required by the competent national authorities to pay compensation under Article 25(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83 after all the tendering securities have been forfeited to the said
office?
In the context of the interpretation of Article 6, must the first indent of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50/EEC be interpreted as meaning that a distinction must be made between needs in the general interest on the one hand and needs of an industrial or commercial character on the other? or that a distinction must be drawn between general interest requirements which are not of an industrial or commercial character on the one hand and general interest requirements of an industrial or commercial character on the other?
Can the national court apply a provision of national law in order to assess whether a right granted by Article 25 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC and Article 54 of the Treaty is being exercised abusively by the party possessing it, or are there other Community law principles, and if so which, to be found in legislation or settled case-law, on which the national court may, if need be, base itself?
If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative, if, that is, the Court of Justice reserves such competence for itself, for reasons relating, for instance, to the uniform application of Community provisions, may the specific circumstances as formulated by the defendant-respondent State as an objection, which constituted the issue of proof in judgment No 5943/1994 of this court, and which were set out succinctly in the previous paragraph of this judgment, or certain of them and if so which, prevent an action founded on infringement of Article 25(1) of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC from succeeding?
Must Article 7 of Directive 79/7/EEC be interpreted as giving the Member States the option of fixing differently, according to sex, the age at which men and women are deemed to have become unfit for work on account of old age in order to qualify for a retirement pension for employed persons and, subsequently, of calculating the pensions differently, as indicated in the present judgment?
Under Article 30 of the EC Treaty and according to Directive 89/104, can a product, the trademark of which is protected, regularly acquired by a trader from Member State A in Member State B where it is registered and marketed under the same trademark, be lawfully imported from Member State B and marketed in Member State A when it is a genuine product which has not undergone any processing, the packaging of which has not been modified, except for the addition of certain information on the label intended to meet the requirements of the legislation of Member State A, while it is also approved in Member State A?
If the answer to the first question is that a distinction must be made between needs in the general interest and needs of an industrial or commercial character, is the concept of needs in the general interest to be interpreted as meaning that there can be no question of satisfying needs in the general interest if private enterprises satisfy those needs?
If the answer to the question in 2(a) is in the affirmative, is the concept of needs of an industrial or commercial character to be interpreted as meaning that needs of an industrial or commercial character are satisfied whenever private undertakings satisfy those needs?
If the answer to the first question is that a distinction must be made between general interest needs not having an industrial or commercial character and general interest needs having an industrial or commercial character, must the concepts of general interest needs not having an industrial or commercial character and general interest needs having an industrial or commercial character then be interpreted as meaning that the distinction between these concepts depends on the answer to the question of whether or not private (competing) undertakings satisfy these needs?
Should the requirement that the organization be created to specifically meet general interest needs of a non-industrial or non-commercial nature be interpreted as meaning that the organization can only be said to specifically meet such needs if it exclusively meets them?
If the answer to question 4 is no, must the organization almost exclusively, or substantially, or predominantly, or, if appropriate, in some other way, satisfy public interest needs of a non-industrial or non-commercial nature, in order to continue to meet the requirement that the organization was created specifically to satisfy those needs?
Is the answer to questions 1 to 5 different if the general interest needs of a non-industrial or non-commercial nature, which the body is supposed to satisfy, are based on a law in the formal sense, administrative provisions, regulatory acts or others?
Is the answer to question 4 different if the business activities are carried out by a separate legal entity, which is part of a group/concern within which activities aimed at satisfying general interest needs are also carried out?
Do Articles 59 of the EC Treaty and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude the imposition by a Member State on an undertaking established in another Member State, and temporarily carrying out work in the first State, of an obligation to draw up social or labour documents such as labour regulations, a special staff register and an individual account for each worker in the form prescribed by the rules of the first State?
Do Articles 59 of the EC Treaty and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude the imposition by a Member State on an undertaking established in another Member State, and temporarily carrying out work in the first State, of an obligation to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by collective labour agreement?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude the authorities of a Member State from monitoring the application of (national and/or Community) law on minimum wages and working conditions for workers carrying out paid work, even temporarily, in the territory of that State?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude a Member State, for reasons of general interest relating to the social protection of workers in the construction sector, from requiring an undertaking established in another Member State and temporarily carrying out work in the first State to pay employers contributions in respect of timbres fidélité and timbres-intempéries stamps for workers assigned to carry out such work?
Do Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude the authorities of a Member State from establishing work regulations?
Are Article 9(2) to (4) of Commission Regulation 3887/92 (prior to the entry into force of Regulation 1648/95) to be construed as requiring that all area-related payments be refused to farmers whose set-aside land actually determined is found to be less than that declared in an aid application when the difference is more than 20% but when no false intention or serious negligence has been found?
Are Articles 9(2) to (4) of Commission Regulation 3887/92 (prior to the entry into force of Regulation 1648/95) to be construed as requiring that all beef premiums be refused to farmers whose forage area actually determined is found to be less than that declared in an area aid application when the difference is more than 20%, but when no false intention or serious negligence has been found?
If the answer to Question (1) and/or (2) is positive, are Article 9(2) to (4) of Commission Regulation 3887 /92 (prior to the entry into force of Regulation 1648/95) invalid, wholly or in part, by reason of breach of any principle of Community law, particularly legal certainty, non-discrimination and/or proportionality?
If the answer to Question (1) and/or (2) is negative, how are Articles 9(2) to 4of Commission Regulation 3887/92 (prior to the entry into force of Regulation 1648/95) to be construed?
Regardless of the answers to Questions (1) to (4), is it valid and lawful for Commission Regulation 3887/92 to impose the sanction of loss of the entire specific area-related payment on a farmer whose area actually determined is found to be less than that declared in the aid application when the difference is more than 20% but when no false intention or serious negligence has been found?
Does the specific object of the trade mark right include the right of the proprietor, after he has placed the alcoholic beverages which he manufactures on the market in the Community, to object, under his national legislation, to the removal of the labels bearing his trade mark which he has affixed to the bottles and to the packaging of the bottles and to their subsequent reapplication or replacement by similar labels by a third party, all without prejudice to the original condition of the product?
Does the problem arise in different terms if, assuming that the labels are replaced by other, similar ones, the third party omits the pure indication on the original labels and/or the importers name and replaces this name with that of another person?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, but the trade mark proprietor uses the option referred to in that question in order to prevent the third party from removing the identification marks affixed by the trade mark proprietor on or under the labels, which enabled him to detect possible loopholes in his sales organisation and thus to combat parallel trade in his goods, is such an exercise of the trade mark right to be regarded as a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, aimed at an artificial division of the market?
Should the answer to the above question be different depending on whether the trademark owner has affixed these identifying signs on the basis of a legal obligation or without being obliged to do so, but with the aim of enabling the recall of the product and/or limiting his liability as a producer and/or combating counterfeiting, or whether he has done so exclusively to combat parallel trade?
Are the disputed charges, which have the characteristics of a tax, contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome?
Can these charges be considered as taxes having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty?
Are such taxes to be regarded as turnover taxes within the meaning of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive, subject to the provisions of Article 378 of the Act of Accession or any other Community legislation?
Is Article 13B(b)(1) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that accommodation provided in the context of the hotel sector or sectors with a similar function is to be understood to refer only to the concept of short-term accommodation of foreign persons?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the period of accommodation which can normally be regarded as short and is it to be considered that the accommodation operations carried out in the hotel sector are no longer present when the operator makes the premises available for long-term accommodation and this results in the conclusion of a long-term lease (over six months)?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 13B(b)(1) of the Sixth Directive allow for a time-based exemption if it is found that the premises as a whole have been let either for a long or a short period of time?
If the first question is answered in the negative, what are the criteria of time, nature of the premises and intention to be used to determine whether operations fall within the notion of accommodation operations carried out in the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function, and which of these criteria must be respected?
Is there a "dominant position on the market or in a substantial part of it", in the case where a joint stock company, set up on the initiative of a national port authority, is entrusted with the task of ensuring, and actually ensures, on the basis of an administrative concession received from that authority, the exclusive management in the context of a port sector specialising in the loading and unloading of petroleum products, of a "pollution surveillance" service, by applying to the users of this service, i.e. to the ships docking to carry out the abovementioned operations, the relevant tariff, set unilaterally by the port authority, on the basis of the tonnage of the ship and the quantities of products unloaded or loaded?
Having regard to the situation set out in Question 1 and if there is a dominant position within the common market or a substantial part of it, is there an abuse of the aforesaid "dominant position" within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty, in particular of subparagraphs (a), (c) and (d), and are there related practices, when an undertaking holding the exclusive concession for a service (even though on the basis of a decision of the authority granting the concession) charges fees: - which are compulsory and independent of the provision of an efficient surveillance and/or intervention service, merely because a vessel berths in a mooring in the Porto Petroli and loads/unloads goods, whether petroleum products or chemicals and petrochemicals, according to the contractual terms imposed; - the amount of which depends solely on the tonnage of the vessel, the amount of the product and also, in the event of any actual intervention, the duration thereof, but not on the products nature, quality or capacity to pollute; - which, since they are imposed exclusively on the vessel (which is merely passively loaded and unloaded), affect a subject other than those whose responsibility it is to carry out the necessary technical operations (in this case Porto Petroli di Genova SpA and the laders/receivers of the product), resulting in an inevitable discrepancy between the responsibility for any pollution and the bearing of the cost of the anti-pollution service; - which, given the nature of the product and/or its existence, represent an unnecessary service for vessels equipped with their own anti-pollution devices and systems adapted to the type of product to be loaded or unloaded; - which impose on the vessel a charge, and an associated extra cost, in addition to those provided for by the landing contract between the carrier and the company operating the wharves, and have no practical connection with the subject-matter of the contract?
If, in the situations set out in Questions 1 and 2, there are one or more practices amounting to abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking for the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, does this lead to a potential adverse effect on trade between Member States of the Union?
If, in the context of trade mark proceedings in one of the Benelux countries the interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Trademark Law, a question arises as to whether the Uniform Benelux Trade Mark Law, a question arises as to the interpretation of the the interpretation of the First Directive of the Council of the European of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), should it be considered that it is the national Supreme Court or the Benelux Court of Justice which is the national court whose decisions are not subject to appeal under national law national law and which is therefore bound to refer the matter to the Court of Justice Court of Justice in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty?
In the case of the resale of goods which have been put on the market in the Community under a trade mark by the proprietor of the trade mark or with his authorisation, is it consistent with the general scheme of the Directive and in particular Articles 5 to 7 thereof, to allow the reseller to also have the option of using the trade mark in order to inform the public of the subsequent marketing of the product?
If the answer to question 2 is yes, are there any exceptions to this rule?
Can there be legitimate reasons within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Directive where the manner in which the reseller advertises the goods modifies or alters the psychological state of those goods - that is to say, the appearance, the image of prestige and the feeling of luxury which emanate from the goods as a result of the manner of presentation and advertising chosen by the proprietor of the trade mark in exercising his trade mark rights?
Do the provisions of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude the proprietor of an emblematic trade mark or the proprietor of a copyright in the bottles and packaging which he uses for his products from preventing a reseller who is entitled to continue to market those products from advertising that product in a manner customary in the trade concerned, by invoking that trade mark or copyright?
Is the ban on HCFCs imposed by Regulation 3093/94 incompatible with the EC Treaty?
Can the legislation or case-law of a Member State, without infringing the provisions of Article 1(1) and the second paragraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977, reduce the compensation to be paid by the Fonda de Garantia Salarial by excluding from the length of service to be taken into account certain periods of time worked by the employees, even if they were worked without interruption for an undertaking which has been transferred?
Are the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, with its annex, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 374/92, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty and therefore invalid in so far as they do not grant export refunds for milk or milk products contained in food preparations falling within subheading 2101 10 of the Combined Nomenclature and manufactured from coffee extracts, essences or concentrates?
Does the prohibition of discrimination preclude an action for repayment of an export refund granted in respect of milk or milk products contained in food preparations falling within subheading 2101 10 of the Combined Nomenclature and manufactured with a basis of coffee extracts?
Does Article 244 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 apply to the suspension of execution of decisions requiring repayment of an export refund?
If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative: in the event of doubt as to the validity of the provisions of Community law on which the decision requiring repayment is based, is the stay of execution to be assessed in the light of Article 244 of the Customs Code or on the basis of other criteria, and if so, which?
If the answer to the third question is negative: on the basis of which criteria should the stay of execution be assessed if there are doubts as to the validity of the provisions of Community law on which the decision requiring repayment is based?
Is Article 177(2) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the Finanzgericht from granting leave to appeal under the combined provisions of Article 128(3)(1) of the FGO in cases such as the present one?
Is the derogation contained in Article llC(l) of the Sixth (VAT) Directive to be interpreted as permitting a Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of tax in the case of bad debts to exclude relief where the consideration lost consists of something other than money?
Are nationals from a Member State A who sue a limited liability company with its registered office in a Member State B before a civil court of that same Member State B for payment for goods delivered, and who have no property or domicile in the Member State B, discriminated against on grounds of nationality contrary to Article 7(1) of the EEC Treaty if, at the request of the defendant, the competent court requires them to provide security for the costs of the proceedings in accordance with the relevant national legislation?
Should Article 15(1)(f) of Regulation No 574/72 and Article 9a of Regulation No 1408/71, be interpreted in the light of Article 48 of the Treaty establishing the EEC as to prolong the reference period for the recognition of entitlement to invalidity pension where a worker has been in receipt of unemployment benefit in another Member State. B in which such extension is provided for and, if so, should such prolongation be subject to conditions?
Must Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in the version currently in force, be interpreted as meaning that, for the grant of unemployment benefit to unemployed persons over 52 years of age, it obliges the competent institution to take account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State in so far as the contributions paid during those periods make it possible, under the conditions of age, to claim unemployment benefit?
If Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 does not apply because a condition for entitlement to a retirement pension must be fulfilled, must Article 51 of the EC Treaty be applied directly and must the competent institution take account of retirement pension rights acquired in another Member State in order to consider that, with the exception of the age condition, the applicant fulfils the condition set out in the national legislation which requires him to be entitled to a retirement pension?
Whether Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 or Article 51 of the EC Treaty is applied, if the competent institution must take account of retirement pension rights acquired in another Member State insofar as the worker concerned would be entitled to benefits from the social security system by application of either national law alone or Community rules, would it be sufficient for the unemployed person concerned to have completed a period of employment in another member state in order to obtain the unemployment benefit which the law provides for unemployed persons over 52 years of age?
Is a provision of national law which allows the owner of a patent relating to specific medicinal products to object, during the term of the patent, to the supply by a third party of samples of the patented medicinal products (or those prepared in accordance with the patented process) to the authority responsible for registering the medicinal products to be regarded as a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports within the meaning of Article 30 EC?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does this measure fall under the exception in Article 36 of the EC Treaty with regard to restrictions which are justified for reasons of protection of industrial property?
If, during the term of a patent, it is infringed under national law and there is a risk that the infringer or a third party will continue to benefit from the infringement after the expiry of the term or that the infringement will continue to disadvantage the patent owner after the expiry of the term, does a judicial prohibition, imposed in order to prevent such a risk of injustice, on the marketing, for a specified period after the expiry of that term, of products which, during the term of the patent, benefited from its protection, constitute a measure prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty and not falling within the exception provided for in Article 36 of the Treaty?
In the event that the submission of samples for the purpose of registration of a medicinal product has given rise to an infringement and that, on that occasion, a judicial prohibition is imposed for a period exceeding the time-limit laid down in Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC for the maximum duration of the procedure for the registration of medicinal products, does the effect of such an extension of the period of prohibition be to render the prohibition to that extent incompatible with Community law and, if so, to enable the person on whom the prohibition is imposed to invoke that incompatibility against the previous proprietor of the patent under Community law?
Must Part Four of the EEC Treaty, in particular Articles 132(1), 133(1) and 134, be interpreted as meaning that on 25 June 1991 no customs duties could be levied on the importation into the Community of goods which were in free circulation in a country belonging to the overseas countries and territories, irrespective of whether those goods originated in the overseas countries and territories or in third countries, and thus by way of derogation from Council Decisions 86/283/EEC and 91/110/EEC?
Do all the provisions, or at least the substantive rules, of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 5, 6 and 53, which are relevant to the proceedings in question form an integral part of Community law (Article 164 of the EEC Treaty), so that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on their interpretation under the first paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty?
If the answer to the question set out in point A is in the affirmative, are the national courts bound by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which have found violations of the ECHR at the hands of the State insofar as they are precluded from arguing that the conduct of the State bodies concerned by the finding was in conformity with the Convention?
If the answer to question A is in the affirmative, are claims for compensation under Article 5(5) of the ECHR excluded where the damage originated in a decision of the Oberster Gerichtshof?
If the answer to the question in A is yes, is detention within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the ECHR retroactively unlawful under the Convention where the European Court of Human Rights has found that the court violated procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention during the criminal proceedings?
If the answer to question A is in the affirmative, should the defendants objection that the sentence would have been the same if the violation of Article 6 of the ECHR found by the European Court of Human Rights had not occurred be upheld in the administrative liability action, even though the national criminal procedure at issue does not - to date - provide for revision on the basis of new facts in such cases, or for any other similar procedure that could remedy this procedural defect?
If the answer to question A is in the affirmative, does the burden of proving the existence of a causal link between the violation of Article 6 of the ECHR and the deprivation of liberty lie with the applicant, and the burden of proving that there is no causal link lies with the respondent?
Does Directive 92/12/EEC and in particular Article 8 have the effect of precluding the charging of excise duty on goods in Member State A in circumstances where (i) the goods were acquired for the use of a private individual in Member State A; (ii) they were acquired in Member State B by an agent acting on behalf of that private individual; (iii) transportation of the goods from Member State B to Member State A was arranged by the agent; and (iv)the individual did not himself travel with the goods from Member State B to Member State A?
Where a scheme has been commercially devised and marketed whereunder purchases made in Member State B for the personal use of a private individual in Member State A are made by an agent for that individual and those purchases are transported from Member State B to Member State A as a result of arrangements made by such an agent, does Directive 92/12/EEC have the effect of precluding the charging of excise duty on those purchases in Member State A?
Do the provisions of Article 5(2) of the Brussels Convention  require as a condition precedent to the institution of maintenance proceedings in the courts of Member State A by an applicant who is domiciled in Member State A against a respondent who is domiciled in Member State B that the applicant has previously obtained an order for maintenance against the respondent?
Should periods of activity completed in a Member State by a Turkish worker on the basis of a residence permit obtained by means of deliberate and punishable fraud be regarded as lawful employment within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Article 14(1) of the decision 64/732 to terminate the residence of the worker concerned by expulsion solely for the general prevention purpose of deterring other foreigners?
Is Regulation 3093/94 to be interpreted, in the light of Article 130r of the Treaty, as permitting the free use of halon by restricting only the production or use by producers and allowing its import freely, whereas it completely prohibits the use of HCFCs for purposes not provided for in Article 5?
Does the rule laid down in Regulation No 3093/94 constitute a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions since, in the absence of the justifications set out in Article 36 of the Treaty, it limits the free movement of a product throughout the Community?
Does the action of the Community and its institutions in connection with the adoption of Regulation No 3093/94 and, in particular, in the stages following that adoption constitute an intervention by public authorities designed to strengthen the dominant position of certain operators, such an intervention constituting in itself a case of abuse under Article 86 of the Treaty?
Can the rules for the protection of the environment - and in particular Regulation 3093/94 - be interpreted as derogating from the Community competition rules, or are the prohibitions in the above rules unconditional and non-derogable, with no derogations or limitations permitted either by the Community or by individual Member States?
Is Article 2(1) of the Sixth EC Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services to players by an organiser of unlawful and punishable games of chance is not subject to value added tax?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative: is Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of unlawful games of chance, in this case roulette, the taxable amount of the services provided by the organiser to the players is the amount which remains with the organiser in a given tax period?
If the answer to the second question is no: how should the tax base be determined in the cases referred to in the first and second questions?
Does the classification of esterified potato starch under tariff subheadings 39.06 B I and 3505 10 50 of the Common Nomenclature or under tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl content and consequently on the degree of its esterification?
If the answer is in the affirmative: how high could the maximum acetyl content have been in the case of esterified potato starch exported in February 1988 so as not to preclude its tariff classification under subheading 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature or heading No 11.08 A. IV of the Common Customs Tariff ?
Are the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92, and in particular Articles 10 and 11, to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of applying the agricultural conversion rate to the amount of the processing premium, the date to be taken into account is the date on which the tobacco is delivered to the processing undertaking by the producer group or, on the contrary, the date on which the product is handed over to the group by the individual producer?
What is meant by contractual delivery within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92?
Is Annex I, Chapter I, Section C of Regulation 1408/71 compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular with Article 48(2) thereof, insofar as it denies entitlement to family allowances to workers whose children are domiciled abroad for the whole calendar months included in an extended period of unpaid leave, whereas workers whose children are domiciled within the Member State are entitled to such allowances?
If Annex I, Chapter I, Section C of Regulation 1408/71 is invalid, does this mean that a person who is put on unpaid leave by his or her employer by mutual agreement is also considered to be a "worker" within the meaning of Article 73 of Regulation 1408/71, or do restrictions apply in this respect, e.g. in view of the length of the leave?
On the proper interpretation of Council Directive 77 /388/EEC and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour operator has its headquarters in Member State A but supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers through the agency of a company in Member State B, in what (if any) circumstances is the supply of those services by the tour operator taxable in Member State B?
On the proper interpretation of Council Directive 77 /388/EEC and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour operator has its headquarters in Member State A but supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers through the agency of a company in Member State B, in what (if any) circumstances can it be said that the tour operator "has established [its] business" in Member State B or "has a fixed establishment from which [it] has provided the services" in Member State B?
Does transport paid for by an employer fall within the concept of services "provided for hire or reward" within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC, even if it is provided (without the employer receiving a specifically stipulated and calculated fee) from a specified minimum distance from the place of residence to the place of work in accordance with a collective agreement, and the work performed - which has no concrete link with such transport services - is due, as for other employees, even if only the cash wage is paid if the employer is not the employer?
Does Article 6(2) of Directive 77/388/EEC apply to the use of property allocated to the business and/or to the provision of services free of charge, even where such use is made by the employer for purposes which are not unrelated to the business but which nevertheless satisfy the private needs of the employee, without the latter being required to pay turnover tax (in respect of the free transport used by him)?
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: is it also one of the situations referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 77/388/EEC where the employer does not transport the employees in his own vehicles but entrusts this task to third parties (in this case to one of his employees)?
Is a national provision which, where there is a gap between the end of the reference period and the beginning of the commitment period, takes account not only of the production (number of livestock units) achieved during the reference period compared with that to be achieved during the commitment period, but also of the changes in production during the intermediate period referred to above compatible with Community law, in particular with Article 1b(3)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and Articles 4(1) and (2), 7 and 10(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, a national provision which, in the event of a reduction in the number of livestock units in the intermediate period between the end of the reference period and the beginning of the commitment period, provides not only for the exclusion of aid for those units but also for the deductibility of the latter for the purposes of calculating the minimum percentage reduction in production between the reference period and the commitment period, is the deductibility of those units for the purposes of calculating the minimum 20% reduction in production between the reference period and the commitment period, as a precondition for the granting of the aid, compatible with the abovementioned Community rules?
Under Directive 89/104, is it sufficient, in order to find that there is a likelihood of confusion between a sign resulting from the combination of a word and a picture and a sign which, although registered for identical and similar goods, has been registered only as a picture and is not particularly well known to the public, that the two pictures coincide in their semantic content?
Are the national provisions at issue in this case compatible with Article 52 of the EEC Treaty insofar as they make the application of the loss carry forward provisions to non-resident taxpayers with a permanent establishment in the Member State  subject to the condition that the losses relate to indigenous income and that the accounts are properly kept and maintained within the country?
Should Regulation No 1101/89 and No 1102/89 be declared invalid on the ground that it was not appropriate within the meaning of Article 75(1)(c) of the EEC Treaty?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: can Regulation No 1101/89 and No 1102/89 lose their validity if their usefulness within the meaning of Article 75(1)(c) of the EEC Treaty disappears after their adoption?
If the answer to the second question is yes: were Regulation No 1101/89 and No 1102/89 still relevant during the relevant period for the purpose of collecting 1990 contributions?
Does the obligation under Regulation No 1101/89 and No 1102/89 to pay contributions for the year 1990 infringe fundamental rights of the Community legal order or other rules of Community law, in particular the right to property, the right to freedom to pursue ones trade or profession, the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality?
Does the fourth paragraph of Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC allow Member States to treat exempt activities of bodies governed by public law, which may nevertheless qualify for taxation, as activities which they carry out as public authorities if they are carried out in the same way as private economic operators and under similar legal conditions?
If the first question is answered in the negative, can the scope of the right to opt for taxation be restricted under the second paragraph of Article 13(C) of Directive 77/388/EEC in that the activities referred to in the first paragraph of Article 13(C) of Directive 77/388/EEC are to be regarded as entrepreneurial activities only under certain conditions if they are carried on by bodies governed by public law?
If the second question is also to be answered in the negative: can a body governed by public law rely directly on the combined provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to oppose the application of a national provision if the application of that provision of the Directive has indirectly advantageous effects through deduction but otherwise has negative effects?
Is Article 173(5) of the Treaty of Rome to be interpreted as meaning that the two-month time-limit it lays down for challenging a Commission decision may be reopened by the effect of a decision given by a court of a Member State, from which it would appear that an act of that State is unlawful, where that act may have had an influence on the Commission decision to be challenged?
Is a request for the presentation of candidates for posts in the administration of the Commission of the European Communities, made during a meeting of the Permanent Representatives and the Secretary General of the Commission, and addressed directly to the Member States, without any other form of publicity, or in the margin of a recruitment procedure advertised in the Official Journal, valid, particularly in the light of the rules governing the recruitment of staff and officials of the Commission?
Is it material to question 2(e) above to consider whether:     (a)    an apportionment of the expenditure on the cars can be made between the business use and the private use?     (b)    the permission to make private use of the cars is a taxable transaction for VAT purposes because the taxable person charges the employees a fee for that use?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 at issue should be declared invalid on the ground that it infringes the provisions concerning the Management Committee procedure, in so far as the text adopted by the Commission should have been resubmitted to the Management Committee as a new regulation having retroactive effect?
Does a prima facie case of indirect discrimination arise where job-sharing workers who convert to full-time work are given credit for incremental progression on the scale of pay for full-time staff by reference to actual time worked such that, while the benefits awarded to them are fully pro-rated to those awarded to staff who have always worked full-time, they are placed at lower points on the full-time scale than comparators who are in all respects similar to them except that they have worked continuously on a full-time basis?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the employer have to provide special justification for recourse to the criterion of service, defined as actual time worked, in awarding incremental credit?
If so, can a practice of incremental progression by reference to actual time worked be objectively justified by reference to factors other than the acquisition of a particular level of skill and experience over time?
Is a special surcharge of 40% of the general goods tax, as described in the order for reference, for the use of ports authorised by the Ministry of Transport as commercial ports to be regarded as falling within the scope of the rules of the EEC Treaty on customs union, including Articles 9 to 13, or of Article 95 of that Treaty?
Should the rules of the EEC Treaty relating to the Customs Union, including Articles 9 to 13, or Article 95, be interpreted as meaning that it is incompatible with these provisions to require a special surcharge of 40% of the general tax levied on goods, where this surcharge is only required for goods coming from abroad?
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, under what conditions can such a tax be justified on grounds of remuneration for a service, or on grounds of transport policy under the transport chapter of the EEC Treaty?
If the special surcharge is held to be incompatible with the EEC Treaty, does that finding apply to the whole of that surcharge levied since the Member States accession to the EEC Treaty or does it apply only to the increase in the surcharge which came into effect after that date?
Does Community law impose any particular obligations on national rules concerning the burden of proof so that the conditions of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty are met?
Assuming that a public undertaking which owns or manages a commercial port holds a dominant position, could the fact that the commercial port imposes the charges described above, fixed by the Minister of Transport for the use of public and private commercial ports, constitute an abuse of that position contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty?
If the answer to question 6 is yes, do the Community rules give the persons or businesses on whom the tax was imposed the right to claim reimbursement or compensation?
Assuming that a public undertaking which owns or manages a commercial port holds a dominant position, does the fact that the commercial port waives the imposition of the port charges described in the order for reference on its own ferry services or those of its trading partners constitute an abuse of that dominant position contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty?
If the answer to questions 1, 2, 4, 6 and/or 8 is in the affirmative, can the particular obligations and tasks imposed on the defendant have the effect of legitimising its conduct under Article 90(2) of the Treaty?
Is Article 1 (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) 214/94 invalid and contrary to Community law to the extent that it requires operators seeking to qualify for the 1994 quota referred to in that provision on the basis of their past beef exports to have exported at least 150 tonnes in the previous year, rather than 100 tonnes as had been required in 1993? In particular, is Article 1(2) invalid and contrary to Community law as: exceeding the powers conferred upon the Commission by Council Regulation No 130/94 infringing the principle of proportionality, infringing the principle of legitimate expectations, infringing the duty to give adequate reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty; and/or having been adopted without proper consultation of the Beef Management Committee, contrary to Article 4 of Regulation 130/94 and Article 27 of Regulation 805/68?
Is Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) 214/94 invalid and contrary to Community law to the extent that it excludes companies arising from mergers where each part has rights pursuant to Article 1(2) of that regulation from the opportunity to cumulate their past trading performance?In particular, does Article 2(2) violate: the principle of non-discrimination, insofar as companies deriving their rights from Article J ( 1) of that regulation can merge and cumulate their past trading performance for the purposes of obtaining quota, whereas companies deriving their rights from Article 1(2) cannot; and/or the guarantee referred to in the second recital to Council Regulation (EC) No l 30/94 of continuing access to quota by all interested operators within the Community?
Does Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community preclude national rules on vehicle registration which lead the administration of a Member State and the economic operators of that Member State to consider that, of two vehicles of the same make and model placed on the market at the same time after 1 July, one is entitled to be sold under the following years registration whereas the other, produced in another Member State, is entitled to be sold under the following years registration, marketed at the same time after 1 July, one is entitled to be presented under the following years model while the other, produced in another Member State and brought in by parallel importation, is prohibited from being so presented?
Is Article 4 of Directive 80/987 of general application and binding and should it therefore have direct effect in national law?
In the absence of information to the Commission as required by Article 11 of the Directive 80/987, is the national legislation at issue in the present case compatible with that Directive?
Does the result intended by Council Directive 89/48/EEC entail the recognition of rights for the individuals concerned?
Is the content of these rights determined with precision, to the extent that it is possible to deduce them from the sole framework defined by the provisions of Directive 89/48/EEC?
Are the combined provisions of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 and Article 9(2) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions also apply to products which were imported between 24 May and 22 June 1990 from the former German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic on the basis of an exemption for the processing of goods in transit and were exported on 10 January 1991 to a third country?
For the period prior to the entry into force of Directive 89/646/EEC, must Articles 59 and 61(2) of the EEC Treaty be interpreted as precluding national legislation requiring authorisation to provide banking services, in particular to grant a mortgage loan, where the bank, established in another Member State, is authorised to do so?
Does the self-employed activity referred to in Article 14a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 cover, in particular, the activity of a national of a Member State as a self-employed person?
Is the judgment of the national court, which in any event relates inter alia to a maintenance obligation, to be regarded as a judgment which also relates to matrimonial property regimes within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, although the national court: ordered the creation of a capital sum to guarantee the maintenance payments, ordered the transfer of the building and the painting of Heern, which, according to the judgment, belonged to the husband; expressly considered that the marriage contract was not binding on him, did not indicate to what extent the preceding point may have influenced his decision?
Is it compatible with Regulation No 1430/79 for a Member State to refuse to refund a tax levied in breach of Community Law on the grounds that the tax is passed on to the purchaser where the business is obliged by the law of the Member State to incorporate the tax into the cost price of the goods sold?
Is Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who is established in Member State A and who, as such, makes available to third parties, under operational leasing contracts, some 6 800 passenger cars, of which some 800 are purchased and made available in Member State B in the manner and in the circumstances of the present case, carries out the latter services from a fixed establishment established in Member State B?
On a sound construction of Article 12(1)(e) of the Directive, in order for charges levied on registration of public and private limited companies and on their capital being increased to be by way of fees or dues, should their amount be calculated solely on the basis of the cost of the formalities in question, or it may be set so as to cover the whole or part of the costs of the authority responsible for registrations?
In so far as there is a general principle in national law that, in assessing a claim for reimbursement of unduly levied duties, weight must be given to the fact that the levy was made in accordance with rules which have been in force for a long period of time without the authorities or any other person being aware that the levy of those duties lacked a legal basis, does Community law preclude a claim for duties levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC from being rejected on the basis of such a principle?
Does Community law preclude a state of law prevailing at national level, according to which the authorities of a Member State, as a party in cases concerning claims for reimbursement of duties levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC, successfully argue that the national limitation periods begin to run with the improper implementation of Directive 69/335/EEC?
Do the combined provisions of Article 10(1) and Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC, as interpreted in the preceding questions, give rise to rights which nationals of different Member States may rely on before national courts?
Is Commission Decision 95/119/EC valid in so far as it relates to the surimi fish products imported by the applicant in the main proceedings from regions of Japan other than those in which the establishments inspected by a Commission expert mission are located according to its report of 4 April 1995, or at least from establishments other than those which were inspected and which, when imported into the Community, were subject to adequate controls which did not reveal any health risk?
Does Regulation 1768/92 preclude the granting of an SPC to each basic patent holder where the same product is covered by several basic patents belonging to different holders?
Having regard to the wording of Articles 6 and 8 of Regulation No 1768/92, can the holder of the marketing authorisation for a medicinal product refuse a basic patent holder or his successor in title the copy of the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation and thereby deprive him of the opportunity to complete his application for a SPC?
Can the administrative and/or governmental authority that granted the marketing authorization concerned, or is the depositary of an original or a copy of the said marketing authorization, refuse to provide a copy to the holder, or his successor in title, of the basic patent(s) concerned, or can it arbitrarily or under certain conditions decide on the appropriateness of providing or communicating the said copy with a view to its use in support of an application for an SPC in the context of the provisions of Regulation No. 1768/92?
Are national provisions which make compensation for damage suffered as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex in connection with recruitment subject to the condition of fault on the part of the employer contrary to Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC?
Does Directive 76/207/EEC precludes provisions of domestic law which place a ceiling of three months salary on the amount of compensation which may be claimed by applicants discriminated against on grounds of their sex in the making of appointments. and is the answer to that question applies equally to applicants who were discriminated against in the recruitment procedure but who, owing to the superior qualifications of the applicant engaged, would not have obtained the position even if the selection process had been free of discrimination and to those who were discriminated against in the recruitment procedure and who would have obtained the position to be filled if selection had been carried out without discrimination?
Are national provisions which in contrast to the usual national provisions of civil and labour law - set an overall limit of six months salary on the amount of compensation payable to all persons injured as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex in connection with recruitment, where more than one person has a claim to compensation, contrary to Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC?
Having regard to the preamble, the general purpose and the particular economy of Regulation (EEC) No. 1101/89, does the concept of specialised vessels in Article 8(3)(c) of the said Regulation cover vessels which, because of their specific construction and equipment or because of the specific use made of them do not increase the hold or the tonnage of inland navigation and are therefore not such as to influence the structural overcapacity of the transport of goods on the network of interconnected waterways of the Member States of the European Union?
In view of the principle of proportionality, is the criterion of technical suitability for inland navigation applied by the Commission of the European Communities in its decision of 6 May 1993 compatible with the purpose and general scheme of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland waterways?
Having regard to the preamble, the general purpose and the specific economy of Regulation (EEC) No. 1101/89, the fact that a vessel is only theoretically suitable for inland navigation in the sense that it could only be made suitable for inland navigation after complicated, costly and therefore economically unrealistic modifications, or in the sense that the use of the vessel for inland suitable for inland navigation or in the sense that the use of the vessel for inland navigation would not be economically viable at all because the vessel was not designed and equipped for inland navigation. Is it sufficient for the owner to be subject to the contribution obligation under the old for new regime?
Having regard to the preamble, the general purpose and the particular economy of Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89, can the decision taken by the Commission of the European Communities on 6 May 1993 concerning the mts Smaragd be considered valid since it subjects to the obligation of a single contribution under the old regime for new a vessel which has been specially designed, built and equipped as a supply vessel intended exclusively for the supply of sea-going vessels with fuel and which is not particularly suitable or intended for the transport of fuel for third parties, or even for its own account, on inland waters and which, therefore, does not increase the hold or the tonnage of inland navigation?
Does the application by the Commission of the criterion of technical suitability rather than that of the actual use of the vessel constitute an infringement of the prohibition of discrimination since, according to the criterion used by the Commission for vessels put into service in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany and France the one-off contribution is due in certain cases without the vessel actually being used for inland navigation and without it thereby contributing to an increase in the tonnage of inland navigation, whereas the one-off contribution is due on the commissioning of a vessel in the other Member States only if the actual use (on the network of interconnected Community waterways) gives rise to it?
Must Article 1(c) of Decision 93/235/ECSC on trade between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Article 1(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 990/93 be interpreted as meaning that only conduct consisting of actual entry into the territorial sea is a breach of the prohibition laid down in those provisions or do those provisions apply equally to conduct carried out on the high seas, which, by its actual design and operation, gives rise to a reasonable inference that the ship or other means of transport is bound for the said territorial sea for the purpose of commercial traffic?
Do Articles 1(d) of Decision 93/235/ECSC and Regulation No 990/93, insofar as they prohibit any activity the object or effect of which is to promote, directly or indirectly, the operations referred to in subparagraph (c), include in their provisions also the navigation on the high seas of a ship or other means of transport carrying goods presumably intended for commercial traffic in the territorial sea of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Is a national provision which expressly provides, in the event of a proven infringement of one of the prohibitions laid down in the abovementioned Articles 1, for the confiscation - whether compulsory or optional - of the cargo carried by one of the means of transport referred to in the second paragraph of Article 10 of Decision 93/235/ECSC and of Regulation No 990/93 compatible or with the Community rules, and in particular with the first and second paragraphs of Article 10?
Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and Article 6(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for incurring the obligation to pay the storage levy are met at the time of production or disposal of the sugar?
Are Article 32a(1) of Regulation No 1785/81 and Article 1 of Regulation No 3046/86 1 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for incurring the obligation to pay the recovery levy were met during the period 1981/82 to 1985/86 or during the production of sugar in the marketing years 1986/87 to 1990/91?
Are Article 1 of Regulation No 1914/87 and Article 2 of Commission Regulation No 3061/87 2 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions required for the obligation to pay the special recovery levy to arise are met during sugar production in the 1986/87 marketing year or before that year?
Must Article 28(3) and (4) of Regulation No 1785/81 be interpreted as meaning that the conditions required to give rise to the obligation to pay the production levies provided for therein are met at the time of production or at the time of disposal of the sugar?
Under Decision 1/80, does a Turkish seafarer lose his right to a residence permit when, having voluntarily terminated his employment relationship with his employer, and not for health reasons for example, he applies eleven days later, after the expiry of his residence permit, for a new residence permit in order to work on land and, having been refused, he becomes unemployed?
Is Article 69(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as worded in Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the unemployed person must have been in employment for at least three months since his return to the Member State applies where the unemployed person does not rely on the national provisions on employment and unemployment in order to claim that he has retained his entitlement to unemployment benefit but proves that, at the date of his application, he fulfils the qualifying conditions for entitlement to such benefit?
Should Directives 76/464 and 85/513 be interpreted as making any discharge of cadmium, irrespective of the date on which the plant from which it comes commenced operation, subject to the issue of prior authorization?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is it possible for direct effect to be given to the Community provisions, in the light of a correct interpretation of Community law, and at the same time for the national provisions which are incompatible therewith to be left unapplied even though the citizens legal position may as a result be impaired?
If Question 2 is answered in the negative, what other method of procedure may be adopted under a correct interpretation of Community law to achieve the elimination from national legislation of provisions which are incompatible with those of Community law, where the direct application of the latter would result in impairment of the citizens legal position?
Is Article 9 of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the place where a veterinary surgeon performs his services as such is deemed to be the place where he has established his business or a fixed establishment from which he performs those services or, in the absence of such a place of business or fixed establishment at the place where he has his permanent address or usually resides, or is that article to be interpreted as meaning that the place is situated at the place where the services are physically performed or at the place where the customer has established his business or has a fixed establishment for which the services are provided or, in the absence of such a place, at the place where he has his permanent address or usually resides?
In determining a part transferees entitlement to a reference quantity under Articles 1(2) and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2055/93 must a Member State having regard to Regulation No 2055/93 and the general principles of Community law on legitimate expectation, proportionality and the respect for property apportion the reference quantity between transferor and part transferee by ascertaining what proportion of the holding was used for milk production at the time the transferor entered into the non-marketing undertaking and then apportioning the reference quantity between the transferor and transferee in proportion to the percentage of land used for milk production transferred to the part transferee?
If the answer is in the negative, are Articles 1(2) and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2055/93 invalid as contravening the general principles of Community law in particular those as to legitimate expectation, proportionality and the respect for property?
Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 316/91, should the cheese concerned be classified under tariff heading 0406 20 90 as grated or powdered cheese, of any kind or under tariff heading 0406 90 11 as cheese for processing?
Is Regulation 2658/87 an interpretation Regulation, which can therefore be applied retroactively to the import of the cheese in question?
If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", should the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities in the version referred to in Official Journal No. C 263/10 of October 18, 1990 or the previous Explanatory Notes be taken into account in this case?
In either case, in which of the two tariff headings mentioned above should the cheese in question be classified?
In a case where: (a) there are pending proceedings in two different Contracting States involving the same cause of action and between the same parties; (b) the first such proceedings in time were initiated in Contracting State A before the Brussels Convention and/or any applicable accession convention came into force in that State; (c) the second such proceedings are initiated in Contracting State B in accordance with Article 2 of the Brussels Convention after the Brussels Convention and/or any applicable accession convention has come into force in both State A and State B; and having regard to Article 29(1) of the San Sebastian Convention and the corresponding articles in any other applicable accession convention and Article 21 of the Brussels Convention (as amended):  Does the Brussels Convention (as amended) and/or any applicable accession convention apply and if so what, rules as to whether the proceedings in State B may or must be stayed, or jurisdiction declined, on the ground of pending proceedings in State A and in particular ?
Is the Court second seised required or permitted, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to decline jurisdiction in respect of, or to stay, the proceedings before it, to conduct any and, if so, what examination of the basis upon which the court first seised assumed jurisdiction?
Is Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 926/80 to be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be applied to an export transaction where the products in respect of which the new monetary compensatory amount is applicable were imported less than 6 months before that export transaction?
Is Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 926/80 to be interpreted as meaning that it cannot also be applied to an export transaction in respect of which monetary compensatory amounts are due where that export transaction was preceded, less than 6 months previously, by an import transaction in respect of which monetary compensatory amounts were received by a person other than the person who exported the goods?
Must the provisions of Article 2 of Regulation No 1637/91 be interpreted as precluding compensation for the permanent abandonment of milk production from being granted to a farmer who, although he does not produce milk, nevertheless has quantities of milk references at the date of the application, in particular from direct sales?
Do benefits granted under a pension scheme such as the DEI insurance scheme fall within the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty?
Is the national legislation in question in this case compatible with the general principles of law established by the Court of Justice, such as respect for the rights of the defence and the adversarial process?
Does the fixing of different age limits for men and women for the purposes of access to early retirement within the meaning of the national provision at issue, the termination of the employment relationship and the calculation of early retirement benefits infringe Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 79/7/EEC and Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC?
Does the different treatment in terms of individual employment relationships and social security resulting from the setting of different age limits violate Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 79/7/EEC and Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC in a legal system where the age limit for employment, which is the only relevant limit for early retirement, is set at 60 for both men and women?
Are Articles 1(1), 2(1), 5(1) and, possibly, 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC to be interpreted as prohibiting the deprivation of a womans right to be assessed and, consequently, to benefit from a professional promotion because she has been absent from the undertaking on maternity leave?
Are the national provisions in question which prohibits persons from acting as intermediaries or middlemen in employment relations compatible with the Community principles referred to in Articles 48, 49, 54 and 90 of the EEC Treaty?
Are these principles directly applicable with the consequence that national regulations do not apply?
Does Community law generally preclude a Member State from offsetting an amount due to the recipient of aid under an act of Community law against outstanding claims of the Member State?
Does it matter, for the purposes of answering Question 1, whether the amount of aid due under Community law is advanced by the Member State which can claim reimbursement of the aid paid only if the rules of Community law relating to payment have been complied with, and which must itself bear the costs of administering the aid scheme?
Does it matter, for the purposes of the answer to Question 1, whether the rules of Member States on set-off require reciprocity of claim between the debtor (principal claim) and the creditor (counterclaim) in order to effect the set-off?
Does it matter for the answer to Question 1 whether the Member States practice with regard to subsidies linked to an economic activity or to environmental policy allows compensation for a maximum of 20% of such state subsidies?
Does the legal basis of the States claim with which the set-off is effected matter for the purposes of the answer to Question 1? In particular, the Member States scope for offsetting is greater where the amount to be offset, or part of that amount, comes from the Communitys own resources.
If questions 1 and 2a - 2d are answered in the sense that offsetting is possible in general or under certain conditions, is Article 15(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 to be interpreted as prohibiting the Member States from instructing the national intervention agency to set off against a beneficiary claims which would normally be eligible for offsetting?
Is Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1765/92 to be interpreted as meaning that the compensation payments referred to therein must be paid as soon as the intervention agency has completed its examination of the beneficiaries application, or may the payment wait until it has been verified whether the State has claims on the beneficiary which the State wishes to offset, provided that the payment is made by 31 December of the year in question?
Where the legislation of a Member State makes the granting of a benefit subsequent to an unemployment benefit subject to the condition that the claimant has received the unemployment benefit for the entire period of benefit provided for by the unemployment provisions applicable in that Member State, must the periods during which the claimant received unemployment benefit in another Member State be regarded as periods of insurance or employment in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/91?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative, the fact that unemployment benefits received in another Member State are not taken into account in assessing whether the condition laid down in national provisions according to which unemployment benefits must have been received throughout the period of benefit provided for by the unemployment provisions applicable in the Member State of origin, is satisfied, shall not be taken into account, Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 7 of the EEC Treaty (namely Article 6 of the EC Treaty)?
Are the two conditions mentioned in the second paragraph of article 244 of Regulation No. 2913/92, i.e. well-founded reasons for doubting compliance with customs regulations or irreparable damage to the person concerned, entirely independent of each other so that the stay of execution must be granted even if there is no reason to doubt the compliance with customs regulations of the tax assessment notice for which the stay of execution is requested, but irreparable damage to the person concerned may occur?
If the answer to the first question is yes, does the fulfilment of the condition of irreparable damage for the interested party necessarily exclude the requirement of the provision of security, or are other conditions necessary for this purpose and, if so, which ones?
Does the threat of loss of employment, which may already be enforced after the claim has become due, constitute a "serious economic or social hardship" even when, under national law, the minimum subsistence level is guaranteed, e.g. by social assistance?
When a stay of execution is granted, must the security always be provided for the amount of the tax, or is it possible to limit it to a part of the amount, taking into account the overall financial situation of the applicant?
Are parallel imports prohibited other than in the context of a mandate given to an intermediary service provider and consequently through a purchase-resale operation and is it forbidden for an independent trader to be both a free agent service provider and a trader, including parallel imports?
Under Regulations (EEC) No. 123/85 and (EC) No. 1475/95, is an independent dealer prohibited from selling new cars?
On a proper construction of Directives 81/851 and 81/852, is the competent authority is authorised to require an applicant for a marketing authorisation, (a) to disclose the name and address of the manufacturer or manufacturers of a substance used in the manufacture of one of the active ingredients of the medicinal product concerned together with information concerning the manufacturing sites, (b) to provide particulars of the manufacturing process and control testing procedures used by the manufacturer of the substance, (c) to submit the results of tests carried out on each batch of the substance with a view to obtaining approval or (d), as an alternative to the above requirements, to purchase the active ingredient used for the preparation of the substance from a specified third party?
Are Council Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC ( and in particular Articles 5, 8, 9, 11, 29-31, 35, 40 and 41 of Directive 81/851/EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive 81/852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior to any amendment) to be interpreted as permitting the competent authority of a Member State, to suspend the time-limits for a grant of a marketing authorization laid down by Article 8 of Directive 81/851/EEC until the applicant has agreed to disclose the name and address of the manufacturer or manufacturers of a substance used in the manufacture of one of the active ingredients of the medicinal product concerned together with information concerning the manufacturing sites?
Is it material to the answers in Questions 1(a) to (d) whether the process of manufacture of the product is continuous or other than continuous, and, if so, what would be the effect on the answers to those questions?
Would it be material to the answers to Questions l(a) to (d) above if it were not reasonably possible for an applicant to obtain any of the information referred to in Question 1(a) and, if so, what would be the effect on the answers to those questions?
If the requests for further information and the other requirements descnbed in Question 1 above, or any of them, are prima facie permissible under Council Directive 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC, must such requests and requirements comply with the Community law principle of proportionality?
If the answer to 4(a) is affirmative, are those principles to be applied in this case by the national court or by the Court of Justice and if yes do the said requests and requirements or any of them infringe the principles of proportionality and by reference to what criteria and considerations must the proportionality of the requests and requirements be assessed?
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as prohibiting requests and requirements such as those described in the first question, or any of them?
Is Article 40 of Council Directive 81/851/EEC to be interpreted as applying to the requests and requirements described in question 1? If so, in what circumstances and by reference to what criteria are the reasons for the imposition of such requests and requirements to be treated as inadequate for the purposes of Article 40, and were such requests and requirements adequately reasoned in the present case?
Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community law to compensate an undertaking for damages for loss which it has suffered as a consequence of the imposition of requests and requirements such as those described above which are incompatible with the provisions of Council Directives 81/851 and/or 81/852; infringe the principles of proportionality; are prohibited by Articles 30 to 36 of the Treaty; are insufficiently reasoned within the meaning of Article 40 of Directive 81/851?
If the answer to Question 7(a) is positive, under what conditions does such liability arise?
Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco 1976 be interpreted as meaning that the grant of the transitional benefits provided for by the national provisions to the wife of a Moroccan worker, who is a member of that workers family within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Agreement, may not be made conditional on possession of the nationality of the Member State?
Is it compatible with the common commercial policy of the Community and, in particular, Article 113 of the EC Treaty and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 prohibiting trade between the Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 151/4 of 3 June 1992) for Member State A to adopt national measures which prohibit the release of funds located in Member State A but belonging to a person in Serbia or Montenegro in circumstances where: release of the funds is sought to pay a national of Member State B for goods exported by him from Member State B to Serbia or Montenegro; the goods have been formally approved as intended strictly for medical purposes by the United Nations Sanctions Committee pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 757; they have been exported pursuant to a prior export authorization issued by the competent authorities of Member State B pursuant to Regulation 1432/92; the national measures permit the release of funds in payment for the export of such goods from Member State A itself where the export authorization referred to at paragraph 2(b) above has been issued by the competent authorities of Member State A; and Member State A has decided that the adoption of such national measures is necessary or expedient for enabling UN Security Council Resolution 757 to be effectively applied?
Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the provisions of Article 234 of the EC Treaty?
The national legislation under which a social security body of Member State A refuses to reimburse an insured person, a national of the same Member State A, for glasses with corrective lenses, Is national legislation under which a social security body in Member State A refuses to reimburse an insured person, a national of the same Member State A, for glasses with corrective lenses prescribed by a doctor established in the same State but purchased from an optician established in Member State B on the ground that any medical treatment abroad must be authorized in advance by the said social security body compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty in so far as it generally penalizes the importation by private individuals of medicinal products or, as in the case in point, of glasses from other Member States ?
In the case of an application for a certificate under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 in a particular Member State in circumstances where: a medicinal product was (on 2 January 1993) the subject of a first marketing authorization in the Community which was obtained pursuant to EC Directive 65/65 (as amended) after 1 January 1985; the medicinal product was (on 2 January 1993) protected by a valid basic patent in the Member State; at the date of submission of such application, marketing authorization in the Member State had yet to be obtained; application for a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 19 was submitted to the relevant national authority (viz. the UK Patent Office) within 6 months of 2 January 1993, as laid down in paragraph 2 of Article 19; is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, and in particular Article 19 thereof, to be interpreted so as to allow the grant of an SPC [ supplementary protection certificate] to the patentee in that Member State or must the provisions of Articles 3(b), 8 and 9 concerning a valid marketing authorization in the Member State also be complied with?
Should an oral agreement on the place of performance (Article 5 of the Brussels Convention 1968) be recognized as valid even if it is not intended to determine the place where the debtor is to perform the obligation, but exclusively to establish a specific place of jurisdiction without being bound by formal requirements?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can an agreement conferring jurisdiction in international trade within the meaning of the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention, in the version applicable from 1978, be regarded as validly concluded by virtue of the fact that one of the parties has not contested the contents of a commercial letter of confirmation in which a pre-printed statement was inserted conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the place of business of the sender, or must there in any event be a prior agreement on the contents of the letter of confirmation?
Is it sufficient that the invoices sent by one of the parties contain a reference to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the carrier is established and a reference to the conditions of the bill of lading applied by the carrier, which included an identical clause, and that the other party has always paid these invoices without raising any objection, or is a prior agreement of will necessary?
When the commercial agent is in charge of a specific geographical area, does his right to commission apply to transactions concluded without his intervention, at any stage whatsoever, whether or not he himself has canvassed the customers concerned, or does this right only apply to transactions concluded in his area of activity, as a result of his intervention and with customers that he himself has found?
When the client is a company, and the head office of this company is not located at the place of operation and exercise of its commercial activity, does the term belonging refer to the head office of this company, or does it refer to the place of actual exercise of its commercial activity and/or possibly of establishment of its factories or other installations, for which the commission is claimed, it being understood that it is in this place, within the geographical area of activity of the commercial agent, that the conceived transaction was concluded, giving the latter the right to the commission?
Under Regulations (EEC) No. 123/85 and (EC) No. 1475/95, what are the definitions of a new car compared to a second hand car?
Is there an infringement of Article 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC or of another provision of Community law in the form of indirect discrimination against women where, under the provisions of national law, in the case of part-time work reduced to no more than half the normal working hours the period of service as a supervisor in the financial administration required for exemption from the examination for admission to the profession of tax adviser, which is at least 15 years, is extended by a corresponding period, and where, of the 119 supervisory staff in the financial administration in question working part-time, 110 are women (92.4%)?
Does the liability of the exporter under Article 10(1) of Annex II to Decision No 86/283/EEC extend to the customs duties due as a result of the cancellation of EUR.1 certificate issued on the basis of a false indication as to the origin of the goods?
What is the meaning and scope of the adverb "also" used in the second paragraph of Article 201(3) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92, in particular when national customs law provides that the perpetrator of the customs infringement is the sole debtor of the duties due on the goods which are the subject of the infringement?
Although the doctrine which emerges from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 7 December 1993 in Case C-12/92 Huygen and Others [1993] ECR I-6381 concerns the free trade agreement between the EEC and Austria, can it be applied to the case in point which concerns the interpretation and application of Council Decision 86/283/EEC?
What is the meaning, scope and extent of the inspection results referred to in Article 25(3) of Annex II to Council Decision 86/283/EEC?
Can a post-clearance recovery action be initiated and terminated in the Member State of importation before the customs authorities of the country of exportation have notified the customs authorities of the country of importation of the results of the inspection and without the importer having been made aware of the results of the inspection?
Is it contrary to the principles of justice, non-enrichment at the expense of others, proportionality, legal certainty and good faith to require the importer, acting in good faith, to pay the duties due for goods in respect of which the exporter has committed a customs offence, in which the importer has had absolutely no part?
Does the fact that the authorities of the State of exportation issued an EUR.1 certificate pursuant to Decision 86/283 without having carried out any prior check to determine the true origin of the goods in question constitutes a case of force majeure preventing post-clearance recovery of customs duties owed by an importer who has acted in good faith?
Is the unemployment benefit for claimants over 52 years of age provided for by national legislation an unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71?
Must Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in the version currently in force, be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of granting the unemployment benefit provided for unemployed persons over 52 years of age under the national legislation in question, it requires the competent institution to take account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State in so far as the contributions paid during those periods allow, under the conditions of age required, entitlement to a retirement pension in a Member State other than that of the competent institution?
Can these periods be taken into account notwithstanding the fact that the worker has not paid any contributions in the Member State of origin or has done so for less than one year, provided that he or she is entitled to a retirement pension in any other Member State?
Is it compatible with Article 48(2) and Article 51 of the EC Treaty for migrant workers to be required to show that they will be entitled to a retirement pension from the social security system of Member State A at the required age in order to receive unemployment benefit for unemployed persons over 52 years of age, and for migrant workers who can show that they are entitled to such a pension in any other Member State (B) to be excluded from receiving the benefit in question?
Is the invoice within the meaning of Article 18(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC only the original, i.e. the document originally drawn up for the purpose of invoicing, or is an invoice within the meaning of that article also to be understood as copies, duplicates and photocopies?
Does the term hold within the meaning of Article 18(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC imply that the taxpayer must be able to present the invoice to the tax authorities at any time?
Does it follow from Article 18(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC that the right of deduction cannot be exercised if the taxable person no longer holds an invoice?
Is Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 990/93 to be construed as applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is held by an undertaking in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) where such aircraft has been leased by the owner for a term of four years from 22 April 1992 to an undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is not held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the said Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)?
Are the mere acquisition of ownership and the mere holding of bonds - claims in the form of negotiable securities - which are not used for any other business activity, and the receipt of income therefrom, to be regarded as economic activities within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC)?
If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, are such activities to be regarded as transactions within the meaning of Article 13(B)(d)(1) or (5) of the Sixth Directive  (77/388/EEC) which, where they relate to bonds issued by a body established outside the Community, give rise to a right to deduct input tax on the holding and management of the bonds in accordance with Article 17(3)(c) of of the Sixth Directive?
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, if a taxable person carries out the activities referred to in the preceding questions and also holds shares which, having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Sofitam (C-333/91) is the input tax charged to that taxable person deductible in full, or is the input tax on the holding of shares excluded from the deduction system?
If the third question is to be answered that the input tax on the holding of shares is excluded from the deduction system, what is the criterion for calculating the amount excluded from the deduction?
Must Article 29 of the Brussels Convention be interpreted as meaning that the court in the State addressed must refrain from examining in any way whether the defendant was validly represented in the proceedings in the State of origin, even if the court in the State of origin did not rule on that point?
Is Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention to be interpreted as precluding recognition of a judgment given in another Contracting State where the defendant was not validly represented in the proceedings in question and was unaware of those proceedings even if he subsequently became aware of the decision and did not initiate an appeal which the procedural rules of the State of origin guaranteed him, and does the fact that the time-limit for appeal is one month from the day on which the decision was brought to the attention of the defendant have any effect in this respect?
Is Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention to be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to judgments given against a defendant who was not a defaulter but who was not served with the document instituting the proceedings or with an equivalent document in a proper and timely manner and who was not properly represented in the proceedings?
Is the applicant, as the wife of an insured person in need of care, part of the active population within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive 79/7?
Does the applicant, as a woman, suffer discrimination within the meaning of the directive 79/7, despite the absence of any reference to sex in the national provision at issue?
Can the plaintiff, who is not insured with the defendant, assert direct rights or are these rights reserved for her husband, in his capacity as an insurer?
Is the defendant itself responsible as an agency of the State or, failing that, who assumes this responsibility?
Does Community law provide for liability on the part of public authorities independent of fault, or can liability on the part of public authorities only be derived from the combined provisions of § 839 BGB (German Civil Code) and § 34 GG (Basic Law)?
Does the definition of article 2 of directive 90/270/EEC exclude the case where the worker uses the screen all week long without the duration of use exceeding four hours in a row every day, as well as the case where the worker uses the screen every day of the week, except one day, for at least four hours?
Does Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC require the periodic examination of eyes and eyesight for all workers, or does it limit the examination to particular categories of workers?
Do Article 4 and 5 of the Directive 90/270/EEC apply only where the workstation as defined in Article 2 of the Directive is actually used by a worker as also defined therein?
Do Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive require workstations to be adapted to comply only with the minimum requirements laid down in Section 1 of the Annex (Equipment) or they must also meet the requirements in Sections 2 (Environment) and 3 (Operator/computer interface)?
Does the definition of article 2 of directive 90/270/EEC exclude the case where the worker uses the screen all week long without the duration of use exceeding four hours in a row every day, as well as the case where the worker uses the screen every day of the week, except one day, for at least four hours?
Does Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC require the periodic examination of eyes and eyesight for all workers, or does it limit the examination to particular categories of workers?
Do Article 4 and 5 of the Directive 90/270/EEC apply only where the workstation as defined in Article 2 of the Directive is actually used by a worker as also defined therein?
Do Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive require workstations to be adapted to comply only with the minimum requirements laid down in Section 1 of the Annex (Equipment) or they must also meet the requirements in Sections 2 (Environment) and 3 (Operator/computer interface)?.
Should the term "canalization and watercourse regulation works" in Annex II of the Directive 85/337 be interpreted as including certain types of works involving the construction of dams along waterways?
Taking into account in particular the concepts of "project and project modification" used in the directive 85/337, will the answer to the first question be different depending on whether it is a question of building a new dike, or relocating an existing dike the reinforcement or widening of an existing dike, or the replacement of a dike by the construction of a new dike at the same location, or whether or not the new dike is stronger or wider than the old one, or a combination of several of the hypotheses listed under the previous four letters?
Are Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that, where, in the national legislation implementing the Directive, a Member State has laid down, in accordance with Article 4(2), specifications, criteria or thresholds for a particular Annex II project but has adopted incorrect specifications, criteria or thresholds, that project must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Article 2(1) if it is likely to have significant effects on the environment, in particular because of its nature, size or location within the meaning of this provision?
If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, is this obligation to submit the project to an assessment directly applicable, so that an individual can invoke it before a national court and the court seized of the matter must ensure compliance even when it has not been invoked before it?
Must a national rule which, although it concerns a matter "within the scope" of the community treaties, is devoid of any statement of reasons, be held to be unlawful under community law pursuant to article 190 of the EC Treaty and therefore inapplicable by the national court and are these consequences limited to cases where the national rule creates an ambiguous factual situation by leaving the legal persons concerned in a state of uncertainty as to the possibilities open to them of having recourse to Community law?
Is a national rule which reserves the provision of an entire category of equally financially important services to non-profit "companies" without giving reasons contrary to Article 58 of the EC Treaty insofar as it makes a strict distinction between profit-making and non-profit companies?
Do Articles 52, 58 and 59 of the EC Treaty preclude national rules from hindering the pursuit of a liberal activity by requiring an undertaking of one Member State wishing to establish itself under the Treaty in another Member State to choose between pursuing that activity in a non-economic form as in this case, it must adopt a formally prescribed legal structure which has nothing to do with the structure required for the purposes of establishment, and - if it intends to carry on its activity in an economic form - it must assume the cost of the services which should be borne by the public health service?
Does Article 59 of the EC Treaty preclude national rules from directing, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the domestic legal system, the users of social services - who are entitled under the domestic legal system to choose their provider - exclusively to undertakings to which the State reimburses the costs of the health care services which any authorized undertaking is required to provide, solely on account of their legal structure knowing that this regulation has the effect, on the one hand, of channeling the demand for services to specific providers and, on the other hand, of depriving the user of a real freedom of choice?
Do Articles 3(f), 5, 85 and 86, if read in conjunction with Article 90, of the EC Treaty preclude the regulation in question?
Do Article 16(3) or Article 30 of Regulation 404/93 require the Commission to regulate cases of excessive hardship caused by category A operators encountering difficulties which threaten their survival because an exceptionally low quota is allocated to them on the basis of the reference years to be taken into account under Article 19(2) of the Regulation and they are unable to turn to the ACP and Community banana markets?
Is Article 19(2) of Regulation 404/93 invalid in so far as it does not provide for other reference years to be taken into account during the transitional period in cases of excessive hardship?
If one of the first two questions is answered in the affirmative: under what conditions is the national court then entitled to prescribe provisional measures, in the context of a procedure for the granting of provisional protection by way of appeal, until the cases of undue hardship are regulated or until Article 19 of Regulation 404/93 is completed?
Where a claimant is entitled to a national social security benefit by virtue of falling within the scope of Council Directive 79/7/EEC, does Community law, in the circumstances of the present case, entitle the claimant to interest on the award of benefit and, if so: (i)from what date is interest payable,(ii)what shall the rate of interest be, (iii) is interest to be calculated only on the balance which falls due after off-setting, in accordance with national overlapping rules, any other benefit payments made from the same period?
Regulation (EEC) n° 1932/93  been adopted in such a way as to produce legal effects?
Do the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1932/93 also apply to imports of sour cherries up to and including 20 July 1993?
If the answer to the second question is yes: (a) Were the conditions for the adoption of a market organization measure for sour cherries met in 1993, b) Is the minimum price regime a lawful and appropriate measure to eliminate market disruption, (c),  is it compatible with the interim agreements of 25 February 1992 between the European Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic?
Is Article 77(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 read in conjunction with Article 79(1) of the same regulation be interpreted as meaning that a supplement to family benefits for dependent children of pensioners - who have not acquired pension rights in a Member State solely by virtue of the legislation of that State but by virtue of the rules for the coordination of European social legislation - equal to the difference between the amount of the benefits provided for in that Member State and the amount of the benefits paid or provided for by the State of residence, is payable by the Member State in which the pensioners do not reside?
Must Article 78(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 79(1) of the same regulation, be interpreted as meaning that a supplement to family benefits for the orphan of a deceased employed or self-employed person who was subject to the legislation of several Member States - if the right to an orphans pension is not available in a Member State to whose legislation the deceased employed or self-employed person was subject, either solely by virtue of the legislation of that State or by virtue of the rules for the coordination of European social legislation, equal to the difference between the amount of the benefits provided for in that State and the amount of the benefits paid or provided for by the State of residence, shall be due from the Member State in which the orphan is not residing?
If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, and entitlement to family allowances has been established, should the amount of the supplementary benefit be reduced in proportion to the periods of insurance completed in the Member State in relation to the periods of insurance of the same nature completed in the State of residence (or in another Member State)?
Should Article 7 of Directive 79/7/EEC be interpreted as preventing the possibility for men and women who are found to be unfit for work due to old age from the age of 65 and 60 respectively, and who also lose their entitlement to social security benefits from that age onwards, to claim an unconditional right to a pension from the age of 60, the amount of the pension being calculated differently for men and women?
Is the pensionable age, as used in Article 7 of Directive 79/7/EEC, the age at which entitlement to a pension arises, or is it the age at which an employed person is deemed to have become unfit for work on account of old age, in accordance with national criteria, and is entitled to a replacement income excluding other social security benefits of the same kind?
Does Article 26 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC  apply to the operations of a person who, though not a travel agent or tour operator in the ordinary English meanings of those expressions, provides for the benefit of travellers services of a kind commonly provided by travel agents or tour operators?
Having regard to the answer to Question 1, does Article 26 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC  apply to operations of the kind in issue in the present case, where the owners of a hotel in a Member State as part of their business as hoteliers, offer to customers at a single inclusive charge a weeks stay at the hotel, transport by coach between the hotel and points in  another part of the Member State, and a local sight-seeing trip by coach during their stay at the hotel (the transport elements being bought in by the owners of the hotel from a coach hire company)?
Is Article 26 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as requiring the apportionment of the total amount received by the tour operator from the traveller between bought-in and in-house supplies by reference to the costs of the components, or as authorising Member States to require apportionment by reference to such costs (i) generally or (ii) in the case of operations of the kind in issue in the present case, or as leaving such apportionment to be made in accordance with the normal principles for determining the taxable amount under Article 11 ?
In the case of the temporary importation of certain means of transport for private use within the Community, within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive 83/182/EEC, is relief granted for a single vehicle or for several and does the Directive in question make a distinction between vehicles intended for private use and those intended for professional use?
Does Directive 83/182/EEC impose a specific obligation on the competent national authorities not to restrict by legislation the possibility of a single person temporarily importing, free of duty, simultaneously or in parallel, more than one car for private use?
Can a public official invoke the provisions of Articles 3 and 9 of the Directive 83/182/EEC before a national court against the administration on the ground that a regulation contained in a statutory instrument is incompatible with those provisions of the Directive?
Must a provision of the national legislature which, in the event of infringement of certain provisions of the ministerial decree transposing Directive 83/182/EEC into national law, provides for the immediate payment of the customs duties and other charges applicable, together with a surcharge of an equivalent amount, be regarded as compatible with the objective and the terms of the directive, in so far as it is established that the import of a passenger vehicle is temporary and not permanent?
Is the imposition of a surcharge equal to 100% of the applicable customs duties and other charges, irrespective of the length of time the second passenger vehicle has been on the territory of a Member State, compatible with the Community principle of proportionality?
Can measures taken on the basis of Articles 130R and 130S of the Treaty restrict the effect of the basic provisions on free movement of goods and competition, and if so, under what conditions?
What is the level of dangerosity of the halons and what kind of product could be used to replace them?
In the case of a survivors pension falling within the definition of pay for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty, does Article 119 precludes the application of a provision of national law which makes the award of such a pension to a widower subject to special conditions which are not applied to widows, and whether there is any rule of Community law which permits such a provision to be maintained in force?
Does Article 119 of the Treaty apply to the case in point in the light of Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on European Union and the fact that the respondent brought his original action before 17 May 1990, that is to say, on 12 June 1989, but that action was, however, dismissed by a national decision, because no objection had been lodged  against the decision of the Director of Staff Insurance, and in the decision a period of three months was granted for lodging such an objection?
Does Article 119 of the Treaty require that widowers discriminated against in breach of that provision be awarded a pension or other survivors benefit under the same conditions as widows?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid on the grounds that, first, the reference in the seventh recital to market distortion is insufficient to explain the failure to abide by Regulation No 3813/92, which establishes the criteria for determining the operative event for the agricultural conversion rate; secondly, no reasons are given for its retroactive effect; and thirdly, reference is made to the favourable opinion of the Management Committee?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid on the ground that by freezing the agricultural conversion rate as of 1 July 1993, it infringes Article 3(1)(iv) of Regulation No 727/70, which permitted tobacco processors to choose when to receive the premium in the course of the four-year period following the harvest and does  Regulation No 3477/93  infringe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations for processing undertakings in so far as the regulation upset rules which had been in force for over 20 years without providing for any transitional measures, when growing contracts for the 1992 harvest had been concluded 18 months prior to its adoption and the tobacco had been harvested and placed under supervision until 15 May 1993?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid on the ground that it breaches the principle of non-retroactivity in so far as it was adopted on 17 December 1993 but applies with effect from 1 July 1993? Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid since the loss suffered by processors would have repercussions for producers because processors would not be able to offer satisfactory prices for tobacco from the harvest following the adoption of the regulation?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid on the ground that it breaches the principle of non-retroactivity in so far as it was adopted on 17 December 1993 but applies with effect from 1 July 1993?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid on the ground that, since the drachma diverges more from the European unit of account than do the currencies of the other Member States, it infringes the principle of equal treatment of Community traders to the detriment of traders from the Member State concerned in the present case?
Should Regulation No 3477/93 be declared invalid on the ground of misuse of powers, in so far as it was adopted for budgetary reasons and not, as indicated in the recitals, in order to avoid market distortion?
Must Article 4(a) and (c) respectively of letter J of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in the version in force on 20 July 1991 and 17 June 1992 respectively, be interpreted as meaning that periods of paid employment and periods treated as such completed in the Member State in question before 1 July 1967 include
(a) periods during which a person performed compulsory military service under national legislation?
(b) periods during which a person has performed voluntary military service in the Member State and has thereby been subject to a special statutory scheme of insurance against incapacity for work applicable to civil servants and persons treated as such?
Does the answer to the second question differ depending on whether the periods during which a person performed compulsory military service under the national law at question were performed within or outside the territory of the European Union (at that time: the Community)?
Is Article 4(1) or (2) of the Birds Directive [Directive 79/409] to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is authorized to take account of the economic requirements mentioned in Article 2 when designating an SPA and defining its boundaries?
If the answer is no to Question 1: Must Article 4(1) or (2) of the Birds Directive be interpreted as allowing a Member State to take account of economic requirements as constituting a general interest superior to that represented by the ecological objective of that directive when designating an SPA and defining its boundaries?
Is Article 4(1) or (2) of the Birds Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, when designating an SPA and defining its boundaries, take account of economic requirements to the extent that they reflect imperative reasons of overriding public interest of the kind referred to in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive [Directive 92/43]?
Does the Second Directive [77/91/EEC], in particular Article 29(1) and (4) thereof, preclude a national law from granting a right of pre-emption to shareholders in the event of an increase in capital by consideration in kind and from subjecting the legality of a decision withdrawing that right of pre-emption to a substantive review of the kind evolved by the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof?
Does Article 59 of the Treaty preclude a national rule which prohibits an undertaking established in another Member State from securing judicial recovery of debts owed to others?
If the answer is Yes to Question 1: is this also the case where national law alone is to be applied in the recovery proceedings because the parties to the enforcement proceedings are resident within the same State and the enforceable decision was also obtained within the State?
Does Article 13B(d) points 3 to 5 of the Sixth VAT Directive mean that VAT exemption should be granted for data-handling services by a bank association to its members and other financial institutions? 
Is such exemption precluded where a transaction is effected, wholly or in part, electronically?
Should any importance be attached to the fact that the wording used in Article 13B(d) points 1 to 2 of the Sixth VAT Directive is "by the person granting [the credit]" whereas "by the person who is granting the credit" is not employed in Article 13B(d) points 3 to 5?
a) Is it significant, as far as the application of Article 13B(d) points 3 to 5 of the Sixth VAT Directive is concerned, whether transactions are effected by financial institutions or by others? 
b) Is it significant whether the entire financial service is performed by a financial institution which has a relationship with a customer? 
c) If it is unnecessary that the financial institution itself should perform the entire service, can the financial institution purchase transactions wholly or in part from another person with the effect that the services performed by that other person are covered by Article 13B(d) points 3 to 5?
Is the wording used in Article 13B(d) points 3 and 4 "transactions ... concerning" to be understood as meaning that VAT exemption should also be granted in cases where a person either performs only a part of the service or effects only some of the transactions that are necessary for the supply of the complete financial service?
In interpreting Article 13B(d) points 3 to 5, should significance be attached to the fact that the taxable person who requests tax exemption for transactions carries those transactions on behalf of the financial institution in whose name the service is performed?
Is it significant, as far as application of Article 13B(d) points 3 to 5 is concerned, that the services in question are now provided by a company which supplies the services to the associated financial institutions? (said services are invoiced by the company to the plaintiff which in turn invoices its financial institution members)
Does Directive 77/187 apply to a situation in which an entity who had entrusted the cleaning of its premises to a first undertaking terminates its contract with the latter and, for the performance of similar work, enters into a new contract with a second undertaking without any concomitant transfer of tangible or intangible business assets from one undertaking to the other?
Must Article 7 of Regulation No 857/84 be interpreted as meaning that the formation of sociétés en participation by milk producers may be equated with leasing?
If no to Question 1: does Article 7 of Regulation No 857/84 apply to the formation of such a company viewed as a required structural adjustment within the meaning of Article 5(c) of Regulation No 804/68?
Must Article 12(c) of Regulation No 857/84 and Article 3(a) of Regulation No 764/89 be interpreted as requiring actual resumption of production by the person concerned?
Does the principle of equal treatment of Article 40(3) of the Treaty preclude a Member State from authorising, for the purpose of carrying on milk production, recourse to certain forms of company under national law, such as partial groupements agricoles d exploitation en commun confined to dairy farming, whilst prohibiting recourse to other forms of company such as sociétés en participation?
Does Article 6 of the Treaty preclude national legislation, adopted in implementation of Regulations Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85, which provides for a system of penalties whereby persons charged with infringements of that legislation are given the choice between:
(a) immediate payment of a given sum (in this case BFR 10 000 per infringement), whereupon prosecution is discontinued, or 
(b) continuation against them of normal criminal proceedings, subject to the proviso that defendants who are not resident in Belgium are obliged to lodge a sum (in this case BFR 15 000) by way of deposit in respect of each offence with which they are charged to cover any fines or legal costs, and subject to the impounding of the vehicle until such time as the deposit is lodged?
Does Article 17 of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EC)  mean that the right to deduct remains in existence for value added tax on investments which were originally intended for use in the undertaking but which, for reasons beyond its control, were never in fact put into use by the undertaking?