Case C-215/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Portugal, administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, type of business

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/17

— Failure to implement Article 9 of the directive: Until
Germany has adopted provisions for the implementation
there are inevitably no
of Article 6 and Article 7,
provisions regarding the procedures for circulating the
information and those to whom the information is to be
addressed.

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in
the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer

(Case C-215/01)

(2001/C 212/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Augsburg
of 26 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 23 May
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the matter of a fine on Bruno
Schnitzer on the following question:

Is it compatible with EC law on the free movement of services
for a Portuguese undertaking, which in its country of origin
fulfils the conditions for carrying on a commercial activity, to
have to satisfy further — albeit purely formal — conditions (in
this case registration on the Skilled Trades Register), in order
to carry on that activity in Germany not just on a short-term
basis but for a longer period?

Appeal brought on 25 May 2001 by Michel Hendrickx
against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hend-
rickx and the Centre européen pour le développement de
la formation professionnelle (CEDEFOP)

(Case C-217/01 P)

(2001/C 212/30)

professionnelle (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 25 May 2001 by
Michel Hendrickx, represented by J.N. Louis and V. Peere, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 (Michel Hendrickx v
CEDEFOP) (1);

then, itself giving judgment on the basis of new provisions:

— grant the appellant leave to amend his pleas in law and

submissions;

in the alternative,

— hold that the decision of the Director of CEDEFOP of
14 November 2000 was taken by an incompetent
authority;

— consequently, annul that decision and also CEDEFOP’s
implied decision rejecting the appellant’s claim for pay-
ment of a (re-)installation allowance corresponding to
two months’ basic salary;

— order the defendant to pay the appellant the sum of
FEB 316 292, plus default interest at 7 % per annum
from 22 July 1999, and to pay the costs of both sets of
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance erred in law in deciding that
CEDEFOP had granted the appellant’s claim, whereas the
decision of 14 November 2000 is a non-existent decision
adopted by an incompetent authority: the Director of
CEDEFOP could not lawfully determine the appellant’s
claim, since the matter had been referred to the Appeals
Board;

— (In the alternative) The Court of First Instance erred in
law since, by not granting the appellant leave to amend
his submissions and pleas in law, it did not allow him to
bring before the Community judicature the dispute
between himself and CEDEFOP over, first, the fixing of
the (re-)installation allowance to which he was entitled as
a result of being reassigned to the Council in Brussels
and, second, the reimbursement of a sum allegedly paid
in error in connection with the installation allowance
paid to him when he took up his post in Thessalonika.

An appeal against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hendrickx and
the Centre européen pour le développement de la formation

(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001, p. 18.