Case C-435/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou by judgment of that court of 10 July 2000 in the case of GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others against the Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou and the Greek State
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, charges for use of infrastructure, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, provision of services, third country

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
Protodikio Rodou by judgment of that court of 10 July
2000 in the case of GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others
against the Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou and the Greek
State

of that kind also contrary to the abovementioned regu-
lation, because it constitutes discrimination as regards
maritime transport to a particular third country (or
particular third countries) and therefore a restriction on
maritime transport provided to that country (or those
countries)?

(Case C-435/00)

(2001/C 45/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
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
27 November 2000 for a preliminary ruling in the case of
GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others against Limeniko Tamio
Dodekanisou (Dodecanese Harbour Fund) and the Greek State
on the following questions:

(a)

Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 to
be interpreted as prohibiting national
legislation of a
Member State from imposing restrictions in respect of
the provision of maritime transport services between
Member States and third countries generally, even if those
restrictions are imposed without distinction on all vessels,
whether they are used by its own nationals providing
services or by nationals of other Member States, and on
all passengers irrespective of nationality, or is it to be
interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a Mem-
ber State from introducing restrictions only in respect of
the provision of services between another Member State
and a third country, reserving in that way more favourable
treatment to domestic carriers who provide maritime
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
passengers whose destinations are domestic ports or
ports in the other Member States of the European Union,
even if those dues in both the above cases are imposed
on all passengers irrespective of their nationality or that
of the vessels, or does a provision of that kind constitute
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
inconsistent with Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86?

(c)

If the answer is in the negative, is it possible for the
harbour dues which are imposed on passengers whose
destinations are ports of third countries to be differen-
tiated still further, according to the third country, on the
basis of the criterion of the distance of the ports or their
geographical location, or is a national legislative provision

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
Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)

(Case C-436/00)

(2001/C 45/15)

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
on 27 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
X and Y v Riksskatteverket on the following question:

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
State’s legislation which like the relevant Swedish legislation
— has the effect that a capital contribution in the form of a
transfer of shares at undervalue is taxed less advantageously if
the contribution is to a legal person which is domiciled in
another Member State and in which the transferor directly or
indirectly has a holding or to a domestic limited company in
which such a legal person has a holding, than would have
been the case if there had been no such foreign proprietorial
interests.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
gericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case
of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG

(Case C-440/00)

(2001/C 45/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 29 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co.
KG (Central Works Council of Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG)
against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG on the following
questions: