law://eu/cjeu/1977/c-85-77/hd_1_1_2_2@2026-11-14The Istituto considers that the question raised is irrelevant and that the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to give a ruling in the matter.There is no doubt that the EEC regulations cited by the Santa Anna company and referred to by the Tribunale di Roma in its order also cover holdings of the kind such as the Santa Anna company manages, but only as regards the objectives stated in them and as regards the clauses of the Treaty.The objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy specified in Article 39 of the Treaty affect only production and trade in agricultural products and not the identification of agricultural holdings for different purposes.Article 40 lays down means which can be implemented by the Community, namely: (a) common rules on competition; (b) compulsory coordination of the various national market organizations; and (c) a European market organization. Here again it is a question of means relating solely to the marketing of products and not to a quite different objective such as classifying the holding for the purpose of determining its insurance contributions. Moreover the second paragraph of Article 40 (3) stipulates that the means shall be limited to pursuit of the objectives set out in Article 39.Regulation No 70/66/EEC of the Council provides a definition of agricultural holding ‘for the purposes of this regulation’. Not only is the scope of the regulation limited as provided in Title II of Part two of the Treaty but its purpose is market research. It cannot therefore constitute an authority to settle the question in the present case.In the same way the other regulations or Community measures cited in the order for a preliminary ruling relate to matters or concepts concerning only aspects of agricultural production and trade but not the nature of holdings considered from the angle of insurance contribution.The Istituto then considers Community legislation on insurance and states that this legislation nowhere contemplates the classification of holdings for the purpose of contributions.The Treaty is concerned only with encouraging the free movement of workers within the Community by aiming to guarantee that from the point of view of insurance all periods of work completed in the various Member States are taken into consideration and that insurance benefits are paid as provided for in such States.It is no accident that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which constitutes the Community legislative basis in social security, applies (Article 2) to workers and their survivors but does not concern employers, rules for whom are left entirely to national legislation.In reliance on the case-law of the Court (judgment of 13 October 1976 in Case 37/76 Saieva [1976] ECR 1523, and judgment of 17 December 1975 in Case 93/75 Adlerblum [1975] ECR 2147) the Istituto contends that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on a matter which falls exclusively within national law. A fortiori this must be the case where the ruling could only be effective within the confines of the legal system of the particular Member Sute.The Istituto contends that the Court should:1. Primarily declare that it has no jurisdiction where the determination of the character of a holding for the purpose of fixing the amount of the social security contributions does not depend on Community rules but on national law.2. Alternatively, if it considers itself unable to decline jurisdiction, rule whether the principles laid down by the Treaty and by Community regulations in relation to agriculture apply also to the legislation of Member States in insurance matters.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.