Case C-369/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
Date: 2001-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, road transport, work permit

8.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 348/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Bundesfinanzh-
of, by order of that court of 17 July 2001, in the case
of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and Logistik
against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen

Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für
pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH on the
following questions:

(Case C-337/01)

(2001/C 348/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 July 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and
Logistik against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, on the
following question:

Is there a removal from customs supervision of re-exported
non-Community goods resulting in the incurring of a customs
debt under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1) solely by virtue of the fact that the goods
intended for re-export from the customs territory of the
Community were not placed under the external transit pro-
cedure immediately on removal from the customs warehouse?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-
shof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of
1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betrieb-
skrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenk-
assen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krank-
enkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V.,
6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundes-
knappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke
Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeuti-
sche und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively

(Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01)

(2001/C 348/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichshof of
3 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 20 September
2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. AOK
Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-
band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der

statutory sickness

1. Are Articles 81 and 82 EC to be interpreted as precluding
national rules under which national leading associations
of
insurance determine binding
maximum amounts for all statutory sickness funds and
compensatory sickness funds up to which the funds bear
the costs of medicines, where the legislature defines the
criteria by which the maximum amounts are to be
calculated, providing in particular that the fixed amounts
must ensure comprehensive and quality-assured treat-
ment of insured persons as well as an adequate range of
therapeutic alternatives, and the determination is subject
to comprehensive review by the courts, which may be
initiated by both insured persons and affected medicinal
product manufacturers?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 86(2) EC exempt such a determination from
the
Articles 81 and 82 EC where the purpose of
determination is to safeguard, in the manner provided for
in paragraph 35 SGB V, a sickness insurance scheme
whose existence was endangered by a significant increase
in costs?

3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2
in the negative:

Are leading associations such as the defendants liable to
claims under Community law for damages and an
injunction even where in determining maximum amounts
they follow a statutory direction, notwithstanding that
national law does not impose any penalty for refusal to
assist in the making of such a determination?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-369/01)

(2001/C 348/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht

C 348/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.12.2001

(Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 25 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal
Labour Office) on the following question:

1.

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey
to be interpreted as meaning:

(a)

(b)

that a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction
on the freedom to provide services which is contrary
to the Additional Protocol and, if so,

that there is also a restriction on the freedom to
the
provide services where a Member State of
Community abolishes an existing work permit
exemption for Turkish drivers engaged in inter-
national haulage who are employed by a (Turkish)
employer with its seat in Turkey?

2. Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom
to provide services or does it also or solely concern
conditions of access to employment within the meaning
of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
of
the Association between the European Economic
Community and Turkey?

3.

Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
of
the Association between the European Economic
Community and Turkey also to be applied to Turkish
employees of an employer with its seat in Turkey who,
as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international
haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the
Community without belonging to the (legitimate) labour
force of that Member State?

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Council Directive 98/81/EC (1) of
26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on
the contained use of genetically modified micro-organ-
isms, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under the EC Treaty;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
of the Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the Directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 13.

Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
ic Republic

Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-371/01)

(2001/C 348/21)

(Case C-375/01)

(2001/C 348/22)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Sep-
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
Legal Service.

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 27 September 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.