Case C-458/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of  16 November 2005  in Mohamed Jouini, Okay Gönen, Hasan Bajric, Gerald Huber, Manfred Ortner, Sükran Karacatepe, Franz Mühlberger, Nakil Bakii, Hannes Kranzler, Jürgen Mörth, Anton Schneeberger, Dietmar Susteric, Sascha Wörnhör, Aynur Savci, Elena Peter, Egon Schmäger, Mehmet Yaman, Dejan Preradovic, Andreas Mitter, Wolfgang Sorger, Franz Schachenhofer, Herbert Weiss, Harald Kaineder, Ognen, Stajkovski and Jovica Vidovic v PPS Princess Personal Service GmbH
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labour law, temporary employment agency, transfer of businesses

C 60/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

1. Is the second sentence of

the second subparagraph of
Article 5(3)(b),
in conjunction with Article 5(3)(d) and
Annex III, section 4, of Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19
December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the making-up by volume of
certain prepackaged liquids (OJ 1975 L 42, p. 1), as most
recently amended by the Act of Accession of 23 September
2003 (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), (‘Directive 75/106/EEC’) to be
construed as meaning that products in packaging with a
volume of 0.071 litre, which are lawfully manufactured and/
or marketed in Ireland or the United Kingdom, may also be
marketed in all of the other EC Member States?

event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of under-
takings or businesses (1), where, in the course of collaboration
between two temporary employment undertakings, without
the first
there being a defined organisational structure of
temporary employment undertaking, a branch manager and a
customer adviser and a manager
from the first
temporary employment undertaking to the second temporary
employment undertaking and carry out comparable work there
and, also in collaboration between both undertakings, approxi-
mately a third of the hired-out employees and the respective
clients (with requirements varying from three to 50 hired-out
employees) transfer with them, in part or entirely?

transfer

2. If Question 1 should be answered in the negative:

is the
second sentence of
the second subparagraph of Article
5(3)(b), in conjunction with Article 5(3)(d) and Annex III,
section 4, of Directive 75/106/EEC compatible with the
principle of free movement of goods in Articles 28 EC and
30 EC?

(1) OJ L 82, p. 16.

Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Republic of
Poland against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 16 November 2005
in Mohamed Jouini, Okay Gönen, Hasan Bajric, Gerald
Huber, Manfred Ortner, Sükran Karacatepe, Franz Mühl-
berger, Nakil Bakii, Hannes Kranzler, Jürgen Mörth, Anton
Schneeberger, Dietmar Susteric, Sascha Wörnhör, Aynur
Savci, Elena Peter, Egon Schmäger, Mehmet Yaman, Dejan
Preradovic, Andreas Mitter, Wolfgang Sorger, Franz Scha-
chenhofer, Herbert Weiss, Harald Kaineder, Ognen, Staj-
kovski and Jovica Vidovic v PPS Princess Personal Service
GmbH

(Case C-460/05)

(2006/C 60/44)

(Language of the case: Polish)

(Case C-458/05)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by the
Republic of Poland, represented by Jarosław Pietras.

(2006/C 60/43)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 16
November 2005,
on
at
29 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Mohamed Jouini and Others and PPS Princess Personal
Service GmbH on the following question:

the Court Registry

received

1. Declare invalid Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive
2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional
qualifications; (1)

2. Conduct the case in Polish;

3. Order the Council of the European Union and the European

Parliament to pay the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Is there a transfer of a business or part of a business, within the
meaning of Article 1 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12
March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the

The Government of the Republic of Poland contends that an
essential procedural requirement was breached by virtue of the
inadequacy of the reasons given for the wording, as adopted, of
Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC.