You are on page 1of 2

10.2.

2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko of that kind also contrary to the abovementioned regu-
Protodikio Rodou by judgment of that court of 10 July lation, because it constitutes discrimination as regards
2000 in the case of GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others maritime transport to a particular third country (or
against the Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou and the Greek particular third countries) and therefore a restriction on
State maritime transport provided to that country (or those
countries)?

(Case C-435/00)

(2001/C 45/14)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt-
en (Supreme Administrative Court), by decision of that
court of 1 November 2000 in the case of X and Y v
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
European Communities by judgment of the the Diikitiko
Protodikio Rodou (Administrative Court of First Instance,
Rhodes) of 10 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on (Case C-436/00)
27 November 2000 for a preliminary ruling in the case of
GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others against Limeniko Tamio (2001/C 45/15)
Dodekanisou (Dodecanese Harbour Fund) and the Greek State
on the following questions: Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
of 1 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
(a) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 to on 27 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a X and Y v Riksskatteverket on the following question:
Member State from imposing restrictions in respect of
the provision of maritime transport services between
Member States and third countries generally, even if those In a situation such as that in the present case, do Articles 43,
46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude the application of a Member
restrictions are imposed without distinction on all vessels,
State’s legislation which like the relevant Swedish legislation
whether they are used by its own nationals providing
services or by nationals of other Member States, and on — has the effect that a capital contribution in the form of a
transfer of shares at undervalue is taxed less advantageously if
all passengers irrespective of nationality, or is it to be
the contribution is to a legal person which is domiciled in
interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a Mem-
ber State from introducing restrictions only in respect of another Member State and in which the transferor directly or
indirectly has a holding or to a domestic limited company in
the provision of services between another Member State
and a third country, reserving in that way more favourable which such a legal person has a holding, than would have
treatment to domestic carriers who provide maritime been the case if there had been no such foreign proprietorial
interests.
transport to third countries compared with carriers who
are nationals of the other Member States?

(b) May a Member State impose different (higher) harbour
dues for the passengers of vessels which call at, or have
as their final destination, a port of a third (non-European
Union) country than the dues which are imposed on Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
passengers whose destinations are domestic ports or gericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case
ports in the other Member States of the European Union, of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
even if those dues in both the above cases are imposed against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
on all passengers irrespective of their nationality or that
of the vessels, or does a provision of that kind constitute
(Case C-440/00)
a restriction on the freedom to transport passengers to
third countries because the higher dues might have an
effect on the choice of routes, so that that provision is (2001/C 45/16)
inconsistent with Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(c) If the answer is in the negative, is it possible for the (Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2000, received at the Court
harbour dues which are imposed on passengers whose Registry on 29 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
destinations are ports of third countries to be differen- the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co.
tiated still further, according to the third country, on the KG (Central Works Council of Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG)
basis of the criterion of the distance of the ports or their against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG on the following
geographical location, or is a national legislative provision questions:
C 45/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.2.2001

1. Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes Pleas in law and main arguments
of informing and consulting employees, in particular
Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
is resident outside the the Community are obliged to obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2) expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
average total number of employees and their distribution 1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
across the Member States, the establishments of the the field covered by the directive.
undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
controlled by it? (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.

2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
affirmative:

Does the obligation to provide information also
encompass the names and addresses of the employee
representation which is to participate, on behalf of Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
the establishment of a European Works Council? of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64. Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd

(Case C-444/00)

(2001/C 45/18)
Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
lic of Germany
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
(Case C-443/00) Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
(2001/C 45/17) Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by the following questions:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
Service of the Commission of the European Communities, ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and Commission Decision
C 254, Kirchberg. 96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
The applicant claims that the Court should: suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
ingots, sheets or coils of steel:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order 1. Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on when they have been:
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement of such a. rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or
data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and b. used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
under Article 32 of that directive; or coils of steel?