Case C-440/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne &#38; Nagel AG &#38; Co. KG against Kühne &#38; Nagel AG &#38; Co. KG
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European undertaking, group of companies, interpretation of the law, worker consultation, worker information, works council

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:

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
the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes
of informing and consulting employees,
in particular
Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong
to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking
is resident outside the the Community are obliged to
provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central
management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the
average total number of employees and their distribution
across the Member States, the establishments of the
undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
controlled by it?

2.

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

the obligation to provide

Does
information also
encompass the names and addresses of the employee
representation which is to participate, on behalf of
the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings
controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating
body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in
the establishment of a European Works Council?

(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-443/00)

(2001/C 45/17)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of
the
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg.

the Legal Service of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order
to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement of such
data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and
under Article 32 of that directive;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
the field covered by the directive.

(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd

(Case C-444/00)

(2001/C 45/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
the following questions:

Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission Decision
and
Directive
96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
ingots, sheets or coils of steel:

91/156/EEC (2)

1. Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
when they have been:

a.

b.

rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or

used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
or coils of steel?