Case C-292/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Patron by order of that court of 8 June 2005 in Irini Lekhoritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos and G. Dimopoulos v the State of the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2005-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crime against humanity, interpretation of the law, law of war, war victim

C 243/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.10.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias by decision of that court of 10 May 2005 in
Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes,
N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries v Minister for Merchant
Shipping and Minister for the Aegean

(Case C-285/05)

(2005/C 243/11)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, Greece) of 10 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 15 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK,
Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries and the
the
for Merchant Shipping and the Minister
Minister
Aegean on the following questions:

for

(a) In accordance with Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of
freedom to provide services to maritime transport within
Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364), are
individuals entitled to rely on that regulation to contest the
validity of provisions adopted by the Greek legislature
before 1 January 2004?

(b) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do
Articles 1, 2, and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
permit the adoption of national rules under which ship-
owners may provide maritime cabotage services only on
routes determined each year by a
specific operational
national authority competent for that purpose and after
first obtaining an administrative licence granted under an
authorisation scheme having the following characteristics:
(i) it relates to all operational routes, without exception,
which serve islands, and (ii) the competent national authori-
ties may approve an application submitted for the grant of
a licence to operate a service by unilaterally amending, in
the exercise of their discretion and without prior definition
of
the application
which relate to the frequency and the period of interrup-
tion of the service and to the fare tariff?

the criteria applied,

the elements of

(c) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is a
restriction on the freedom to provide services that is imper-
missible for the purposes of Article 49 of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Community introduced by national

legislation which provides that a shipowner to whom the
administration has granted a licence to operate a ship on a
specified route (either after his application in that regard
has been approved as it stands, or after it has been
approved with amendments to certain of
its elements,
which he accepts) is in principle obliged to work the par-
ticular operational route continuously for the entire dura-
tion of the annual operational period, and that to secure
compliance with this obligation imposed on him he must
deposit, before the operational service commences, a letter
of guarantee all or part of whose amount will be forfeited if
the obligation in question is not complied with or not
complied with precisely?

(d) Do Article 5(2) and Article 6(3)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) of
Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety
rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144) in
the version in force at the material time, before its amend-
ment by Directive 2003/24/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 April 2003 (OJ 2003 L 123),
permit a national rule which prohibits absolutely the opera-
tion on domestic voyages of ships which have reached a
specified age?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Patron
by order of that court of 8 June 2005 in Irini Lekhoritou,
V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos
and G. Dimopoulos v the State of the Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-292/05)

(2005/C 243/12)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Efetio Patron (Court of
Appeal, Patras) of 8 June 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 20 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Irini Lekhoritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P.
Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos and G. Dimopoulos and the State of
the Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/9

1. Do actions for compensation which are brought by natural
persons against a Contracting State as being liable under
civil law for acts or omissions of its armed forces fall within
the scope ratione materiae of the Brussels Convention in
accordance with Article 1 thereof where those acts or omis-
sions occurred during a military occupation of the plaintiffs'
State of domicile following a war of aggression on the part
of the defendant, are manifestly contrary to the law of war
and may also be considered to be crimes against humanity?

2. Is it compatible with the system of the Brussels Convention
for the defendant State to put forward a plea of immunity,
with the result, should the answer be in the affirmative, that
the very application of the Convention is neutralised, in par-
ticular in respect of acts and omissions of the defendant's
armed forces which occurred before the Convention entered
into force, that is to say during the years 1941-44?

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, by adopting Regulation No
647/05, the legislature accepted the criteria previously laid
down by the Court of Justice for the coordination of special
and non-contributory benefits. However, the legislature failed
to draw all the consequences of those criteria when it included
in the list of permitted benefits set out in Annex IIa of Regu-
lation No 1408/71 those under the headings W. Finland (b), X.
Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f), which, in the
Commission's view, do not satisfy the criteria of ‘special’ bene-
fits within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation.

(1) OJ L 117, 04.05.2005, p. 1

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the European Parliament
and the Council

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof by order of that court of 17 May 2005 in Haupt-
zollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH

(Case C-299/05)

(2005/C 243/13)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case C-300/05)

(2005/C 243/14)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council
was brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Marie-José
Jonczy, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

Justice of

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. annul the provisions of Annex I, point 2, of Regulation (EC)
No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regula-
tions (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
to members of their families moving within the Community
and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for imple-
menting Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) relating to head-
ings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom
(d), (e) and (f);

2. order the defendants to pay the costs.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof of 17 May
2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 July 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas and ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH on the
following question:

Is the loading and unloading time part of the ‘travel’ time
within the meaning of point 48(4)(d) of the Annex to Directive
91/628/EEC (1) on the protection of animals during transport
(as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (2))?

(1) OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17.
(2) OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52.