Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrakopoulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko Dimosio (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to all persons providing services, irrespective of their nationality, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community transport and transport to third countries)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, charges for use of infrastructure, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, provision of services, third country

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/17

2. On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/
71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the
grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the
main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
territory of the competent Member State, that condition must
be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of
another Member State.

( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v
Österreichische Nationalbank (1),

(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
Annex I B)

(2002/C 323/20)

(Language of the case: German)

2.

3.

directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
down by Article 10 of that directive.

far from depriving it of

In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
and I B to Directive 92/50,
its
effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
directive. When, following the classification thus made by
reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
authority to separate from the contract in question the services
referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
respect of them.

It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
Annex I A to the Directive.

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

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

In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it
has ruled:

1.

The determination of the regime applicable to public service
contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the

in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
Dimosio (1)

(Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
transport and transport to third countries)

(2002/C 323/21)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-

C 323/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Geor-
giou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos
Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios
Dimitrakopoulos and NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou,
Elliniko Dimosio, on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
transport between Member States and between Member States
and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1),
the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
22 December 1986 applying the principle of
freedom to
provide services to maritime transport between Member States
and between Member States and third countries precludes the
application in a Member State of different harbour dues for
domestic or intra-Community traffic and traffic between a
Member State and a third country if that difference is not
objectively justified.

2.

The imposition on passengers of vessels that call at or whose
final destination is a port in a third country of different harbour
dues from those imposed on passengers of vessels whose
destination is domestic or in another Member State, without
there being any correlation between that difference and the cost
of the harbour services enjoyed by those categories of passengers,
amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services
contrary to Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.

3. Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86 does not permit the
imposition, for journeys to ports in third countries, of harbour
dues that vary according to criteria relating to the distance of
those ports or their geographical location if the difference in the
dues is not objectively justified by differences in the way
passengers are treated on account of their destination or the
place from which they have come.

( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of
workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances
appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transpo-
sition)

(2002/C 323/22)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-455/00, Commission of the European Communities
(agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by D. Del Gaizo, avvocata dello Stato): Application for a
declaration that:

— by failing to ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
workers who use display screen equipment
for the
purposes of Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC
of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
requirements for work with display screen equipment
(fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156,
p. 14);

— by failing to ensure a supplementary opthalmological
examination in all cases where regular eye and eyesight
tests show that this is necessary; and

— by failing to specify the circumstances in which the
workers concerned are to be provided with special
corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of that directive,

(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
the Court
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)