Judgment of the court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe "Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG" (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope — Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), equal treatment, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, racial discrimination, working conditions

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

2.

The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a
relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by
Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that
purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
down in the Directive.

( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets
— Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)

(2003/C 146/14)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-122/01 P, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
Hambourg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtwanwalt:
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February
2001 in Case T-1/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II-
465, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders T. Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam
Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne Gewerkschafter-
Innen/UG’ (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for
workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as
regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope —
Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers
from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)

(2003/C 146/15)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-171/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’, also represented: Bundesmi-
nister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Kammer für Arbeiter und
Angestellte für Vorarlberg, Wählergruppe ‘Vorarlberger Arbei-
ter- und Angestelltenbund (ÖAAB) — AK-Präsident Josef Fink’,
Wählergruppe ‘FSG — Walter Gelbmann — mit euch ins
nächste Jahrtausend/Liste 2’, Wählergruppe ‘Freiheitliche und
parteifreie Arbeitnehmer Vorarlberg — FPÖ’, Wählergruppe
‘Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock’, and Wählergruppe ‘NBZ —
Neue Bewegung für die Zukunft’, on the interpretation of
Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on
the development of the Association, adopted by the Associ-
ation Council established by the Association Agreement
between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
Jacobs,
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G.
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which
it has ruled:

Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
established by the Association Agreement between the European
Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as:

— having direct effect in the Member States, and

C 146/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

— precluding the application of national legislation which excludes
Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force
of the host Member State from eligibility for election to the
general assembly of a body representing and defending the
interests of workers, such as the chambers of workers in Austria.

( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

in Case C-217/01 P: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
(Cedefop) (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Resettlement Allowance — Action
which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudi-
cate)

(2003/C 146/16)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-217/01 P, Michel Hendrickx (represented by
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere): Appeal against the order of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 Hendrickx v Cedefop
(not published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being: Centre européen pour
le développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)
(represented by B. Wägenbaur), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Hendrickx to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

in Case C-268/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar): Agrargenossenschaft
Alkersleben eG, v Freistaat Thüringen, (1)

(Milk and milk products — Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3950/92 — Scheme applicable to the territory of the
former German Democratic Republic — Reference quantities
— Concepts of ‘producer’ and ‘holding’ — Lessee of a
holding situated within that territory)

(2003/C 146/17)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-268/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar (Germany) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben eG, and Freistaat
Thüringen, on the interpretation of Articles 3(2), 4(4), 5 and
9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk
and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), as amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999
(OJ 1999 L 96, p. 11), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
the Chamber, V. Skouris
of: R. Schintgen, President of
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May
2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional
levy in the
milk and milk products sector, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999 and read
with Articles 3(2), 4(4) and 5 of the former regulation, must
be interpreted as meaning that all the milk production of a
farmer established in the territory of the former German
Democratic Republic obtained on an independent basis in
leased facilities situated in that territory but in different länder
must be imputed to the reference quantity provisionally allocated
to him.

2. Article 9(c) and (d) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended
by Regulation No 751/99, and read with Articles 3(2), 4(4)
and 5 of the former regulation, must be interpreted as precluding
the competent national authorities from prohibiting a producer
established in the former German Democratic Republic from
transferring his milk production to facilities in a commune
which, although forming part of that territory on the date of