Judgment of the Court of 20 February 2001 in Case C-192/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, intervener: Justice (Citizenship of the Union — Nationality of a Member State — Declarations by the United Kingdom concerning the definition of the term "national" — British Overseas Citizen)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, United Kingdom, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, nationality, residence permit

C 173/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 February 2001

nature of the anti-dumping duty applicable under Article 1(2) of
Regulation No 2849/92 to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi
Fujikoshi Corporation and imported by Nachi Europe GmbH.

in Case C-239/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)): Nachi Europe
GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.

(Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping measures —
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 — Modifi-
cation of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball
bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm
originating in Japan — Reference for a preliminary ruling
on whether that regulation is valid — Failure by the
plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking
annulment of the regulation)

(2001/C 173/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-239/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
(Finance Court) Düsseldorf for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Nachi Europe
GmbH and Hauptzollamt Krefeld — on the validity of
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of
28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external
diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by
Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
15 February 2001, in which it has ruled:

Neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases
T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v
Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Case C-245/95 P
Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 Sep-
tember 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm
originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 in
so far as it fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings
manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation.

An importer of those products, such as Nachi Europe GmbH, which
undoubtedly had a right of action before the Court of First Instance
to seek the annulment of the anti-dumping duty imposed on those
goods, but which did not exercise that right, cannot subsequently
plead the invalidity of that anti-dumping duty before a national
court. In such a case, the national court is bound by the definitive

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 February 2001

in Case C-192/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary
of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur,
intervener: Justice (1)

(Citizenship of the Union — Nationality of a Member State
— Declarations by the United Kingdom concerning the
definition of the term ‘national’ — British Overseas Citizen)

(2001/C 173/13)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-192/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
Office) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home
Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, intervener: Justice — on
the interpretation of Articles 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 17 EC and 18 EC), of the Declaration
by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’,
the Treaty concerning the
annexed to the Final Act of
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the
European Communities (OJ 1972 L 73, p. 196), of the new
Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of the
term ‘nationals’ (OJ 1983 C 23, p. 1), and of Declaration No 2
on nationality of a Member State, annexed to the Final Act of
the Treaty on European Union (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 98) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 2001,
in which it has ruled:

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/9

In order to determine whether a person is a national of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the purposes of
Community law, it is necessary to refer to the 1982 Declaration by
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’ which
replaced the 1972 Declaration by the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of
the term ‘nationals’, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European
Communities.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 February 2001

1.

The combined provisions of Article 1 and Article 4 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
within Member States (maritime cabotage) permit the provision
of regular maritime cabotage services to, from and between
islands to be made subject to prior administrative authorisation
only if:

— a real public service need arising from the inadequacy of
the regular transport services under conditions of free
competition can be demonstrated;

— it is also demonstrated that that prior administrative
authorisation scheme is necessary and proportionate to
the aim pursued;

— such a scheme is based on objective, non-discriminatory
criteria which are known in advance to the undertakings
concerned.

in Case C-205/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo, Spain): Asociacio´ n Profesional de
Empresas Navieras de Lı´neas Regulares (Analir) and
Others v Administracio´ n General del Estado (1)

2.

(Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage —
Conditions for the grant and continuation of prior adminis-
trative authorisation — Concurrent application of the
methods of imposing public service obligations and of
concluding public service contracts)

Community law permits a Member State to include in the
conditions for granting and maintaining prior administrative
authorisation as a means of imposing public service obligations
on a Community shipowner a condition enabling account to be
taken of his solvency, such as the requirement that he have no
outstanding tax or social security debts, thus giving the Member
State the opportunity to check the shipowner’s ‘capacity to
provide the service’, provided that such a condition is applied on
a non-discriminatory basis.

(2001/C 173/14)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-205/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), Spain, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Asociacio´ n Profesional de Empresas Navieras
de Lı´neas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administracio´ n
General del Estado — on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2
and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December
1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to
maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage)
(OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´-
guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet (Presi-
dents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P.
Jann, L. Sevo´ n,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 2001,
in
which it has ruled:

3. Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 is to be interpreted as
permitting a Member State to impose public service obligations
on some shipping companies and, at the same time, to conclude
public service contracts within the meaning of Article 2(3) of
the regulation with others for the same line or route in order to
ensure the same regular traffic to, from or between islands,
provided that a real public service need can be demonstrated
and in so far as that application of the two methods concurrently
is on a non-discriminatory basis and is justified in relation to
the public-interest objective pursued.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.