Case C-384/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Københavns Byret by order of that Court of 14 August 2002 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud Grøngaard and Allan Bang
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confidentiality, dissemination of information, interpretation of the law, merger, professional association, stock-exchange listing

C 7/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of that Court of 9 October 2002 in the case of
Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet

(Copenhagen District Court) of 14 August 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 25 October 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud
Grøngaard and Allan Bang on the following questions:

(Case C-382/02)

(2003/C 7/20)

Question 1

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Vestre Landsret
(Western Regional Court) of 9 October 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 23 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet on the
following questions:

1. Are Article 15(7) and (9) (referring to Article 15(6)) of
the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/
EEC (1), to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State
is entitled not to exempt from VAT supplies to aircraft
operating on a domestic route, regardless of the fact that
the company using the aircraft operates chiefly on
international routes, or is the Member State bound to
exempt such supplies from VAT?

2.

If the Court finds that supplies must be exempted from
VAT if the airline operates chiefly on international routes,
the Court is asked to state which criteria in the form of, for
example, turnover, available seat kilometres, passenger
kilometres or number of passengers and flights, are
decisive under Article 15(6) for determining whether an
airline can be said to be operating ‘chiefly’ on international
routes?

( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).

Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 (1) preclude a person
from disclosing inside information in the case where that
person received the inside information in his capacity as an
employee-elected member of the board of the undertaking to
which the inside information relates and that information is
disclosed to the general secretary of the trade union which
organises the employees who elected the person concerned as
a board member?

Question 2

Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude a person from
disclosing inside information in the case where that person
received the inside information in his capacity as a member
of the undertaking’s corporate liaison committee and that
information is disclosed to the general secretary of the trade
union which appointed the person concerned to be a member
of the corporate liaison committee?

Question 3

Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude the general
secretary of a trade union from disclosing inside information
in the case where that general secretary received the inside
information under the circumstances outlined in Question 1
and the information is passed on to:

(a)

the general secretary’s two deputies;

(b)

(c)

the senior administrative manager of the union’s sec-
retariat; and

colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s
secretariat?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Københavns
Byret by order of that Court of 14 August 2002 in the
case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud Grøngaard
and Allan Bang

Question 4

(Case C-384/02)

(2003/C 7/21)

Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude the general
secretary of a trade union from disclosing inside information
in the case where that general secretary received the inside
information under the circumstances outlined in Question 2
and the information is passed on to:

(a)

the general secretary’s two deputies;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Københavns Byret

(b)

the senior administrative manager of the union’s sec-
retariat; and

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/13

(c)

colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s
secretariat?

Question 5

What bearing on the answers to Questions 1 to 4 has the fact
that the inside information which is disclosed is

(a)

(b)

(c)

information on the commencement of merger nego-
tiations between two companies quoted on the stock
exchange;

information on the date of merger of two companies
quoted on the stock exchange; or

information on the level of the rise in the value of shares
in a company quoted on the stock exchange which is
anticipated by reason of the fact that the company is to
merge with another quoted company?

( 1) Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinat-
ing regulations on insider dealing (OJ L 334 of 18.11.1989,
p. 30).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeits- und
Sozialgerichts Wien by decision of that Court of 22 Octo-
ber 2002 in the proceedings between Josef Baldinger and
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

(Case C-386/02)

(2003/C 7/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of
the Arbeits- und
Sozialgerichts Wien (Labour and Social Court Vienna) of
22 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 28 October
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Josef Baldinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
(Pension Insurance Scheme for Workers) on the following
questions:

3. were outside the territory of the Republic of Austria as a
result of political persecution or the threat of political
persecution and were taken into custody for political or
military reasons by a foreign power and detained after
the start of the Second World War,

is to be conditional on such persons holding Austrian national-
ity at the time of application?

Action brought on 4 November 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-388/02)

(2003/C 7/23)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 4 November 2002
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Maria Patakia and Karen Banks, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 June 1999 on the establishment of a
mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect
of the professional activities covered by the Directives on
liberalisation and transitional measures
and sup-
plementing the general systems for the recognition of
qualifications (1), or in any event by failing to communi-
cate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the Directive;

2.

order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Is Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty, on the free movement of
workers, to be interpreted as precluding a national rule which
provides that entitlement
to financial compensation first
legislated for in the year 2000 for persons who

1.

became prisoners of war in the course of the First or
Second World War; or

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 31 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
in the conclusions of the Commission.

2. were taken into custody and detained by a foreign power
for political or military reasons in the course of the
Second World War or during the period when Austria
was occupied by the allied forces; or

(1) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.