Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2002 in Case C-447/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg): Holto Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of a company branch established in a Member State in the commercial register of that State, the company having its seat in another Member State where it conducts no economic activities — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU Member State, branch, interpretation of the law, right of establishment

20.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 97/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

29 January 2002

in Case C-162/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v
Beata Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer (1)

(External relations — Europe Agreement between the Com-
munities and Poland — Interpretation of the first indent of
Article 37(1) — Prohibition of discrimination based on
nationality as regards conditions of employment or dismissal
for Polish workers legally employed in a Member State —
Fixed-term contract of employment of a foreign-language
assistant — Effect on such a contract of the entry into force
of the Europe Agreement)

(2002/C 97/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-162/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Land Nordrhein-Westfalen and Beata Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer,
on the interpretation of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic
of Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf
of the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of
the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993
(OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of
the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of
the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993, which
has direct effect, precludes the application to Polish nationals of
a national provision according to which positions for foreign-
language assistants may be filled by means of
fixed-term
contracts of employment, whereas,
for other teaching staff
performing special duties, recourse to such contracts must be
individually justified by an objective reason.

2.

The first indent of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement
applies, from the date of entry into force of that agreement, to
a fixed-term contract of employment which was concluded prior
to the date of its entry into force but which is due to expire after
that date.

(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 22 January 2002

in Case C-447/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Salzburg): Holto Ltd (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of a
company branch established in a Member State in the
commercial register of that State, the company having its
seat in another Member State where it conducts no economic
activities — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2002/C 97/02)

(Language of the case: German)

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

1.

The first indent of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communities

In Case C-447/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) for a preliminary

C 97/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2002

ruling concerning the application for registration in the
Commercial Register made to that court by Holto Ltd. — on
the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order on
22 January 2002 in which it has ordered:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly lacks
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Salzburg
in its order of 27 November 2000.

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation (Belgium) by judgement of 6 November 2001 in
the case of Office National de l’Emploi against Mohamed
Alami

(Case C-23/02)

(2002/C 97/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgement of the Cour de Cassation
(National Employment Office) (Belgium) of 6 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Office National de l’Emploi
(National Employment Office) against Mohamed Alami on the
following question:

Does the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
in Rabat on 27 April 1976, concluded on behalf of the
Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
26 September 1978 (1), preclude a Member State from taking
account only of work periods as an employee completed on
its territory by workers of Moroccan nationality for the
purposes of determining whether they are entitled to benefit
from a supplement for seniority increasing the basic amount
of their unemployment benefit?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commerce de Marseille by order of 22 January 2002 in
the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against Seatrano Shipping
Company Limited

(Case C-24/02)

(2002/C 97/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Commerce
de Marseille (Marseille Commercial Court) of 22 January 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against
Seatrano Shipping Company Limited on the following ques-
tions:

1. Does Title II of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
1968, as reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 (1), permit a court of a Member State
to restrain a citizen of another Contracting State from
bringing proceedings before the courts of his home
country, under either his national law or Community
law?

2. May an English court, by way of an anti-suit injunction,
purport to restrain a person from having access to another
Community court which nevertheless have jurisdiction
under the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as
reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Decem-
ber 2000?

3. May an English court, by means of that procedure deprive
other Community courts of the power to rule on matters
falling within their own competence when that power
appears to arise from the provisions of Chapter II of
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000?

4.

Is an order compelling a Community national to with-
draw an independent action already commenced before a
French court, under threat of punitive sanctions such as
those provided for by the English anti-suit injunction
procedure, consistent with the fundamental principle of
the right to access to a court, as protected by the Court
of Justice of the European Communities?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
(OJ L 264, 27.9.1978, p. 1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1).