Case C-427/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), drivers, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, work permit

C 3/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Question 1

When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 (1) on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992(2), is the ‘body respon-
sible for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8)
of Directive 89/665/EEC required to take into account the
prospects of success of an application for an unlawful decision
of a contracting authority to be set aside pursuant
to
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?

Must Directive 87/102/EEC (1) and Directive 90180/EEC (2) be
interpreted as having as their sole purpose consumer protec-
tion or, as aiming, beyond that, at the organization and
regulation of the single market in credit?

Must the obligation to interpret those directives in conformity
with their purpose, and at least in way protective of consumers,
prompt the national court to prefer an interpretation of its law
that would allow it to raise, of its own motion, issues of
irregularity affecting consumer credit agreements, such as a
failure to indicate in writing the percentage rate of charge, in
actions for payment of a debt brought before it by credit
institutions?

Question 2

When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, is the ‘body responsible
for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of
Directive 89/665/EEC entitled to take into account the pros-
pects of success of an application for an unlawful decision of
a
to
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?

contracting authority to be

set aside pursuant

(1) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
L 42 of 12.2.1987, p. 48).

(2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions of
the Member States
concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti v
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-427/01)

(2002/C 3/28)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 19 October
2001 in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v
Christian Giner

(Case C-426/01)

(2002/C 3/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance
(District Court), Vienne, of 19 October 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 29 October 2001 for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner
on the following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
(Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 30 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti. v
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour Office) on the follow-
ing questions:

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

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/19

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?

2.

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, in light of the
considerations set out in the grounds hereof can the
transitional rules under examination come within the
provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?

If the answer to Question 2 is negative, in light of the
general principles of Community law and in particular
those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can the tran-
sitional rules under examination be deemed compatible
with the EC Treaty and the Community legal order?

3.

4.

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?

Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
the Association between the European Economic
of
Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting
a Member State of the Community in general
from
introducing national provisions which, in comparison
with the position under national law on 1 December
lay down new restrictions on access to the
1980,
employment market for Turkish workers, or does that
provision prohibit the introduction of new restrictions
only in respect of the employment or continued employ-
ment of workers who were already legally resident and
employed in Germany before the entry into force of the
new restriction?

Reference. for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of 15 October
2001 in the case of Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA

(Case C-428/01)

(2002/C 3/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court
of 15 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
on 31 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA on the following questions:

1. On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may
transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
and come within the scope of the prohibition under
Article 87 EC?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) by judgment of 2 November
2001 in the case of Philippe Mertens against E´ tat belge

(Case C-431/01)

(2002/C 3/30)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 2 November 2001 of the
Cour d’appel de Mons (6ème chambre fiscale)
(Court of
Appeal, Mons, 6th fiscal chamber), received at the Court
Registry on 7 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Philippe Mertens against E´ tat belge (Belgian State), on
the following question:

Does Article 39 and/or Article 43 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community preclude legislation by a Member
State under which, for assessment to tax of individuals, a
business loss suffered in that Member State by an individual
residing in that Member State in the course of a previous
period of assessment may be deducted from the profit of that
individual for a subsequent period of assessment, only to the
extent that the business loss may not be set off against
emoluments relating to that earlier period of assessment
arising from a salaried activity carried on by that individual in
another Member State, and if the business loss thus set off may
be deducted neither in that Member State nor in the other
State from the taxable income of that individual for assessment
to tax of individuals, although if the individual had carried on
his salaried activity in the same Member State as that in which
he carries on the self-employed activity, the business losses
could be properly and lawfully deducted from the taxable
income of that individual?