Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-555/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi): Magali Warbecq v Ryanair Ltd (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Court or tribunal having the power under Article 68 EC to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling — Court lacking jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, international transport, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/19

ORDER OF THE COURT

erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia
Giulia on the following question:

(Fourth Chamber)

of 10 June 2004

in Case C-555/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi): Magali Warbecq v
Ryanair Ltd (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and
commercial matters — Court or tribunal having the power
under Article 68 EC to request the Court to give a preli-
minary ruling — Court lacking jurisdiction to give a preli-
minary ruling)

— Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and
milk products must therefore be determined in the light of
the provisions of Community law under which that levy
was introduced and the basic rules governing its application
were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of
31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 2 of 28
December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No
856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regu-
lation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992 be interpreted
as meaning that
levy on milk and milk
products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with
the result that producers are liable to pay it only where
quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intention-
ally or as a result of negligence?

the additional

(2004/C 228/36)

(Language of the case: French)

(1) OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

In Case C-555/03: reference to the Court under Article 68 EC
by the Tribunal du travail de Chareleroi (Belgium) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Magali Warbecq and Ryanair Ltd — on the interpreta-
tion of 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 2001 L 12, p.
1) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schie-
mann and E. Juhász, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 June 2004, the
operative part of which is as follows:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal du travail
de Charleroi (Belgium) by judgment of 15 December 2003.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case
of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le
in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli
erogazioni

Venezia Giulia

(Case C-223/04)

(2004/C 228/37)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Tribunale di Gorizia
pean Communities by order of
(District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the
case of Ms Nurten Güney-Görres against Securicor Avia-
tion Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited, and
Kötter Aviation Security GmbH & Co. KG.

(Case C-232/04)

(2004/C 228/38)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
(Labour Court Düsseldorf) (Germany) of 5 May 2004 received
at the Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Ms Nurten Güney-Görres against Securicor Avia-
tion Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter
Aviation Security GmbH & Co. KG on the following question:

1. In examining whether there is — irrespective of the ques-
tion of ownership — a transfer of a business within the
meaning of Article 1 of Directive 2001/23/EC (1)
in the
context of a fresh award of a contract, does the transfer of
the assets from the original contractor to the new contractor
— having regard to all the facts — presuppose their transfer
for independent commercial use by the transferee? By exten-
sion, is conferment on the contractor of a right to determine
the manner in which the assets are to be used in its own
commercial interest the essential criterion for a transfer of
assets? On that basis, is it necessary to determine the opera-
tional significance of the contracting authority's assets for
the service provided by the contractor?