Case C-275/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001, in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Date: 2001-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, property leasing, sale, shareholding, tobacco

13.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/11

b) Does Article 11 of the Directive simply mean that, if a
candidate for approval to audit accounting documents in
a Member State of the European Union has obtained,
under the regime which applied before harmonisation,
some of the required qualifications in another Member
State, the Member State from which approval is sought
regards those qualifications as having been obtained in
that same State and does not introduce an exception to
the generally applicable rule that approval is granted only
after an examination of professional competence has
been passed? Or is it to be interpreted as allowing a
person holding an approval to audit accounting docu-
ments which has been granted to him in a Member State
under the regime which applied before harmonisation to
receive the corresponding approval in another Member
State without being obliged to sit an examination of
professional competence, but just on a simple finding
that his qualifications are equivalent?

(1) OJ L 126, 12.5.1984, p. 20.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
of 22 June 2001, in the case of Debra Allonby against 1)
Accrington & Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing
Services, 3) Secretary of State for Education and Employ-
ment

(Case C-256/01)

(2001/C 289/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 June 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Debra Allonby against 1) Accrington &
Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing Services, 3) Sec-
retary of State for Education and Employment, on the follow-
ing questions:

1. Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to enable a
woman to claim equal pay with a man in the circum-
stances of this case?

eligible to join the Scheme can comply with the require-
ment of being employed under a contract of employment,
and by establishing that the requirement is not objectively
justified?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Bari — Sezione distaccata di Altamura, by order of that
court of 28 June 2001 in the case of Walter Ferro against
Giovanni Santoro

(Case C-273/01)

(2001/C 289/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari —
Sezione distaccata di Altamura (Bari District Court, Altamura
Division) of 28 June 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Walter Ferro against Giovanni Santoro on the following
question:

‘whether Directive 86/653/EEC (1) on the coordination of the
laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commer-
cial agents and, in any event, the principles of Community law
of freedom of movement and the freedom to provide services
are to be interpreted as being compatible with national
legislation which makes the right of brokers to payment for
services conditional upon their being entered in the appropri-
ate register.’

(1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
employed commercial agents OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
(United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001,
in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of
Customs and Excise

(Case C-275/01)

(2001/C 289/22)

2. Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to entitle
Mrs Allonby to claim access to the pension scheme either
(i) by comparing herself with Mr Johnson or (ii) by
showing statistically that a considerably smaller pro-
portion of female than of male teachers who are otherwise

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
(United Kingdom) of 7 June 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
and Excise, on the following question:

C 289/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.2001

‘Is the grant, by the owner of premises (“the Siteholder”) to an
owner of a cigarette vending machine, of the right to install,
operate and maintain the machine in the premises for a period
of two years, in a place nominated by the Siteholder, in return
for a percentage of the gross profits of the sales of cigarettes
and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no other
significant rights of possession or control than those set out in
the written agreement between the parties, capable of amount-
ing to the letting of immovable property with the meaning of
Article 13(b) of Council Directive No 77/388/EEC (1) of the
17th day of May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes; and what are
the principles applicable in deciding whether an agreement
amounts to the letting of immovable property within such
meaning?’

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
of 27 June 2001, in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against
1) First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels
Caledonia SA

(Case C-280/01)

(2001/C 289/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 27 June 2001, which was
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against 1) First
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA,
on the following questions:

the Court Registry on 16 July 2001,

(1)

Is there a connection between claims which is sufficient to
justify the application of Article 6(1) of the Convention (1)
only where the risk of irreconcilable judgments can be
avoided altogether, or may it exist where it is possible by
means of Article 6(1) to avoid that risk as regards
judgments affecting the parties to the proceedings to
which Article 6(1) would apply although some risk of
irreconcilable judgments would remain as between those
proceedings, on the one hand, and a claim or claims
involving one or some of those parties and one or more
other parties, on the other hand?

(2) May a connection between claims which is sufficient to
justify the application of Article 6(1) exist where the
irreconcilable judgments arises from possible
risk of

inconsistent findings of fact, or can it only be based on
possible incompatible holdings of law?

(3)

If proceedings have been brought in the Courts of a
Contracting State against a Defendant domiciled in that
State for a claim in a matter relating to contract, does
Article 6(1) permit the Claimant to join as an additional
Defendant a person domiciled in another Contracting
State against whom his claim amounts to a matter relating
to tort, delict or quasi-delict and not a matter relating to
contract, where (unless such a conclusion is precluded by
the different legal nature of the two claims) the national
Court is satisfied that the connection between the claims
against the two Defendants is of such a kind that it is
expedient to determine the claims together in order to
avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from
separate proceedings?

(4) May the Claimant join the Second Defendant in reliance
on Article 6(1) in the circumstances described in question
3) above, where

(a)

(b)

the first claim is under a contract for a package
holiday under which the First Defendant, the orga-
niser or provider of the holiday, accepts responsi-
bility for bodily injury to the Claimant caused by
negligent acts or omissions of its agents, suppliers
and sub-contractors and their servants and agents
whilst in the course of their employment, and

the second claim is a claim in the tort of negligence
against the Second Defendant, who is one of the First
Defendant’s agents suppliers or sub-contractors, and
the claim is based upon the negligence of one or
more of the Second Defendant’s employees or agents
in the course of their employment?

(1) Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ
1975 L 204, p. 28), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May
1989 on the Accession of
the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1).