Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-254/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement Directive 95/47/EC within the prescribed period — Use of standards for the transmission of television signals)
Date: 2001-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, harmonisation of standards, high-definition television, satellite communications

22.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 369/5

(c) may not establish in Germany a branch recognised as a
construction undertaking if its staff is entrusted solely with
work on administration, marketing, planning, supervision
and/or wages and salaries, but in order to be so recognised,
such an establishment must employ on the German labour
market workers who spend more than 50 % of the firm’s
total working time on building sites,

the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);

Article 29(1) and (2) of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC
of 18 July 1989, must be interpreted as permitting an adjudicating
authority which has chosen to award a contract
to the most
economically advantageous tender to award that contract to the
tenderer who has submitted the tender the ultimate cost of which, in
the professional opinion of an expert, is likely to be the lowest,
provided that the equal treatment of tenderers has been ensured,
which presupposes that
the
procedure have been guaranteed and in particular that:

the transparency and objectivity of

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

— this award criterion was clearly stated in the contract notice or

contract documents; and

(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.

— the professional opinion is based in all essential points on
objective factors regarded in good professional practice as
relevant and appropriate to the assessment made.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 October 2001

in Case C-19/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supreme Court of Ireland): SIAC Construction Ltd v
County Council of the County of Mayo (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 11 October 2001

(Public works contracts — Award to the most economically
advantageous tender — Award criteria)

in Case C-254/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(2001/C 369/07)

(Language of the case: English)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
implement Directive 95/47/EC within the prescribed period
— Use of standards for the transmission of television
signals)

In Case C-19/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Supreme Court of Ireland for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between SIAC
Construction Ltd and County Council of the County of Mayo
— on the interpretation of Article 29 of Council Directive
71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 682), as amended by
Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 (OJ 1989
L 210, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevo´ n, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October
2001, in which it has ruled:

(2001/C 369/08)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-254/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
M.A Fierstra, and subsequently by J. van Bakel) — application
for a declaration that by failing to bring into force or to
communicate all of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October

C 369/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.12.2001

1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of television
signals (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51) the Kingdom of the Netherlands
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La
Pergola,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which
it:

1. Declares that by failing to bring into force and to communicate
all of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use
of standards for the transmission of television signals the
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 19 September 2001

in Case C-18/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti): Criminal proceedings
against Maurizio Perino (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
75/442/EEC — Storage of waste prior to a recovery operation
— Invoking a directive in order to oppose an individual)

(2001/C 369/09)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

Italy,

In Case C-18/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti,
for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against Maurizio Perino — on the interpretation of
point R 13 of Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of
24 may 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB to Directive
(Second
75/442 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32) — the Court
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,

Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
19 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

A directive cannot, by itself,
law
enacted by a Member State in order to implement it, have the effect
of establishing or rendering more serious the criminal liability of
persons who act in contravention of its provisions.

independently of any national

(1) OJ C 79 du 18.3.2000.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
Bielefeld by order of that court of 24 July 2001 in the
case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS Anker
GmbH

(Case C-349/01)

(2001/C 369/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
Court), Bielefeld of 24 July 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 17 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS
Anker GmbH on the following questions:

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 an undertaking established
in the United Kingdom, which is regarded as the central
management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
and Article 4(3) of the directive, or an undertaking
established in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which
constitutes the central management of the controlling
undertaking under Article 2(1)(e) and Article 3(1) of the
directive,
is obliged to provide another undertaking
resident in the Federal Republic of Germany belonging to
the same group of undertakings with information on
undertakings and establishments belonging to the group
of undertakings and on their legal form and represen-
tation arrangements and the average total number of
employees and their distribution across the Member Sates
and the undertakings?

2.

If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
affirmative: Does the obligation to provide information
also encompass the names of the employees’ represen-
tation and their representatives who are to participate, on
the undertaking or the
behalf of
undertakings controlled by it, in the establishment of a
European Works Council?

the employees of

(1) OJ L 254, p. 64.