Case C-363/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht, Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 10 July 2001 in the case of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, management, market access, provision of services

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/13

2. Do the labelling Directive or Articles 28 and 30 EC
preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
mation such as that described in question (1) to be affixed
thereto only after prior authorisation by the competent
federal minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is
that the health-related information is consistent with
protecting the consumer from being misled?

(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt, Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 10 July
2001 in the case of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen
GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-363/01)

(2002/C 3/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court), received at the Court Registry on
24 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthan-
sa AG on the following questions:

1.

Is Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996
on access to the groundhandling market, in particular
Article 16(3) thereof, in conjunction with recital 25 in
the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that
the managing body of an airport within the meaning of
Article 3 is entitled to demand from a self-handler and/or
a supplier of handling services to third parties payment
of a separate licence fee for the grant of ‘access to airport
installations’ in the sense of an access fee in return for the
opening-up of a commercial opportunity in addition to a
user fee (rental) payable by the self-handler or a supplier
to third parties of handling services for the rental under
contract of airport installations, in this case, passenger
check-in desks;

or alternatively, does Directive 96/67 merely provide
that, for the purposes of determining a user fee, account
is to be taken of the criteria mentioned in Article 16(3)
and regard is to be had to the interest of the managing
body of the airport in achieving a profit?

2.

3.

If the answer to Question 1 — first alternative — is
affirmative, does the airport operator also have the right
to claim such a licence fee from a self-handler and/or
supplier of handling services to third parties (supplier in
the situation of the defendant in the main proceedings)
in sectors where free access to the ground-handling
market was already guaranteed prior to entry into force
of Directive 96/67, in particular in regard to land-side
handling services?

If Question 2 is answered affirmatively, is Directive 96/67
to be interpreted as entitling the managing body within
the meaning of Article 3 also to demand payment of an
additional
licence fee as described in Question 1 for
‘access to airport installations’ from a self-handler and/or
a supplier of services in the situation of the defendant in
the main proceedings who, until entry into force of
Directive 96/67 or of provisions transposing it into
national law, paid (only) rent for the use of the relevant
airport installations?

4. May it even be mandatory to demand (additionally)
payment of a licence fee by a self-handler and/or supplier
of handling services who has hitherto enjoyed free access
to that market, or to the self-handling sector, without
being required to pay an additional licence fee, in order
to prevent unequal treatment in relation to other self-
handlers and suppliers of ground-handling services

(a) who have already hitherto been requested to pay a

supplementary licence fee in addition to a user fee;

(b) who are for the first time granted access to airport
the legal situation
installations on the basis of
created by Directive 96/67 and are henceforth being
requested to pay a licence fee for such access
in addition to a further user fee for use of the
installations?

5.

In so far as Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67 entitles
an airport’s managing body to require payment of a
supplementary licence fee as described above, does a
licence fee which is required to be paid in addition to a
fee for use of check-in desks meet the requirements
of Article 16(3)
in regard to relevance, objectivity,
transparency and non-discrimination where it is deter-
mined according to numbers of passengers (in this case
DM 0,30 per passenger checked in)?

(1) OJ L 272, p. 36.