You are on page 1of 2

C 169/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.7.

2002

1.2.2.2. Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries 26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
of that motorway? Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft

1.3. If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative: (Case C-160/02)

1.3.1. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/ (2002/C 169/33)
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or, European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired? Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
1.3.2. If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
following question:
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed? Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
Council on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32. of their families moving within the Community, as amended
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42. and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827. 2 December 1996 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
of that benefit?
(Case C-159/02)
(1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
(2002/C 169/32) (2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the


European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question: the European Communities against the French Republic

‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the (Case C-161/02)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently (2002/C 169/34)
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent An action against the French Republic was brought before the
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
before the English courts?’ 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
13.7.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 169/19

The Commission of the European Communities claims that Action brought on 8 May 2002 by the Commission of the
the Court should: European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

— declare that, by failing to communicate measures trans-


posing into national law the provisions of Directive (Case C-171/02)
1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability
of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 (2002/C 169/36)
emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger
cars (1), or at any rate by not informing the Commission
fully thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May
— order the French Republic to pay the costs. 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and António Caeiros, acting as
Agents.
Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:


The time-limit for transposition expired on 18 January 2001.

I. Declare that:
(1) OJ L 12 of 18 January 2000, p. 16.

1. inasmuch as the system for issuing authorisations


by the Ministro de Administração Interna requires
that foreign undertakings, in the private security
services sector, wishing to pursue in Portugal activi-
ties in the security sector in respect of persons and
property:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 9 April (a) must have their main offices in or be estab-
2002 in the case of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne lished in Portugal;
Maier, (2) Christian Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki
Karan
(b) cannot rely on the guarantees already submit-
(Case C-168/02) ted in their Member State of origin;

(2002/C 169/35) (c) must have legal personality;

(d) must have a specific amount of capital;


Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
2. inasmuch as the employees of foreign security
(Supreme Court) of 9 April 2002, received at the Court
undertakings, in the private security services sector,
Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
wishing to pursue in Portugal security services
of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne Maier, (2) Christian
activities in respect of persons and property must be
Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki Karan on the following
in possession of an employer’s identity card issued
question:
by the Portuguese authorities;

Is the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’


contained in Article 5(3) of the Convention on jurisdiction 3. inasmuch as work in the private security sector is not
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial covered by the Community system of recognition of
matters of 27.9.1968 (‘the Convention’) to be construed in professional qualifications;
such a way that, in the case of purely financial damage arising
on the investment of part of the injured party’s assets, it also
encompasses in any event the place where the injured party is the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
domiciled if the investment was made in another Member under Articles 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and
State of the Community? Directive 92/51/EEC (1);

II. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.