Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach (Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal certainty)
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drivers, interpretation of the law, road transport, social legislation

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

1. Declares that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates
for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological
digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted
by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of
Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of
those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are
aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such
advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member
States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age
requirements,
its
obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC;

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirk-
shauptmannschaft Mistelbach (1)

(Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting
of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court
to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal
certainty)

(2003/C 44/16)

(Language of the case: German)

1.

2.

3.

4.

In the case of transport by more than one driver, Article 8(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation
of certain social legislation relating to road transport applies as
a lex specialis that prevails over paragraph 1 of that article.
Consequently, those provisions are not to be applied cumulat-
ively.

The same interpretation applies to Article 8(1) and (2) of the
European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles
engaged in International Road Transport (AETR).

It is for the national court to determine, having regard to the
facts of the main proceedings, whether it is appropriate to apply
the provisions of Regulation No 3820/85 or those of that
agreement.

Examination of Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 3820/
85 in the light of the principle of legal certainty has failed to
disclose any matters of such a kind as to affect its validity.

(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

in Case C-462/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Halmstads tingsrätt): Ulf Hammarsten (1)

(Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp
sector — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation
prohibiting all cultivation and possession of hemp without
prior authorisation)

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

(2003/C 44/17)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

In Case C-439/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Libor Cipra Vlastimil
Kvasnicka and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach, on the
interpretation and validity of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
it has ruled:

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

In Case C-462/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Halmstads tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
in criminal proceedings before it against Ulf Hammarsten on
the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of
the Community legislation applicable to the cultivation and
marketing of hemp, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it has ruled: