Case C-413/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2007 — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: international transport, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, labour law, ship's flag, vessel, workplace

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/15

Questions referred

such as

1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national monopoly on certain gaming,
sports
betting, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to
limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, in
particular because the operators which have been granted a
licence within that Member State encourage participation in
other gaming — such as State-run lotteries and casino games
— and, moreover, other games with the same or a higher
suspected potential danger of addiction — such as betting on
certain sporting events (e.g. horse racing) and slot machines
— may be provided by private service providers?

specifically designated for

2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State
that purpose by the
bodies
Member States, which are not restricted to the particular
national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and
third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers
to conclude contracts also in other Member States without
any additional national authorisations being required?

and computer equipment, consumer electronics and indus-
trial machines, be regarded as an electrical machine or appa-
ratus within the meaning of heading 8543 of the CN?

including photovoltaic

2. If it is a part of a machine, is ‘photosensitive semiconductor
device,
cells, whether or not
assembled in modules or made up into panels’ referred to in
heading 8541 of the CN to be interpreted as including an
optical-electrical circuit as described above, or is such a
product to be regarded as an electronic integrated circuit
within the meaning of heading 8542 of the CN owing to the
presence of the amplifying circuit?

a

for

ruling

Reference
from the
preliminary
Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany)
lodged on 10 September 2007 — Kathrin Haase, Adolf
Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem,
Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas
Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO
Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden lodged on 7 September 2007 — X B.V. v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-411/07)

(2007/C 283/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

(Case C-413/07)

(2007/C 283/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon,
Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André
Richter, Andreas Schneider

Defendants: Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime
Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD.

Questions referred

1. Must an optical-electrical circuit contained in a plastic case
which, together with a light emitting diode (‘LED’), a plastic
film and a photodetector, contains an amplifying circuit and
inter alia, communication
is intended for incorporation in,

1. Must Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be
interpreted as meaning that, for employees engaged to work
on a particular ship and exclusively working on that particu-
lar ship, the ship itself is to be considered as the place where
the employee habitually carries out his work?

C 283/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

2. Must Article 19(2)(a) be interpreted as meaning that — at
least in a situation in which the ship that is to be considered
as the place of work is not used exclusively or predominantly
in the territorial waters of any one country, but for interna-
tional transport services, such as,
in the present case, for
regular passenger services between Germany and Finland —
the court for the home port or for the port of registry in the
country under whose flag the ship sails is to be considered
as the court for the habitual place of work?

3. Must it be assumed that an employee who works exclusively
on a particular ship used for international transport services
does not habitually carry out his work in any one
country and that,
than
Article 19(2)(a) has to be applied for the purposes of deter-
mining which court — in a country other than the country
where the employee is domiciled — has jurisdiction?

therefore, Article 19(2)(b) rather

4. If so, must Article 19(2)(b) be interpreted as meaning that
the place where the business which engaged the employee is
situated can also be an office located in one of the ports
regularly visited by the ship, even though it is not operated
by the employer itself but by another company entrusted by
the employer — by way of a management contract — with
organising in its capacity as ‘operator’ the commercial and
technical running of its ships, and that company employs, in
that office, a ‘crew manager’ who is responsible, inter alia, for
even though
coordinating the personnel's assignments,
employment contracts were not concluded in that office but
on the ship by the ship's captain, but where the office was
used to issue duty rosters and to receive certificates of inca-
pacity to work and by the ‘crew manager’ working there to
give notices of termination of employment ?

5. If question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative:

a) Can the purchaser of the ship whose crew members were
able, pursuant to Article 19(2)(b), to sue their former
employer in the court for the place in which the business
which engaged the employee was situated be sued in the
same court simply on the basis that the employees who
were given notice claim that their contracts of employ-
ment were transferred to the purchaser in accordance
with provisions on the transfer of undertakings in the
national law they claim ought to be applied?

b) If an action is also brought against the ‘operator’ — iden-
tified in question 4 — who gave the notice, can this
action be brought in the same court as the action against
the former employer?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
ordinario
on
10 September 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA v Istituto
nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI

di Nocera

Inferiore

lodged

(Italy),

(Case C-415/07)

(2007/C 283/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Il Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA

Defendants:
SCCI

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS),

Question referred

the Guidelines on national

Is the Community law laid down in the Guidelines on aid to
employment,
regional aid and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 5 December
2002 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to deter-
mine whether there has been an increase in employment, a
comparison must be made between the average AWU [annual
working units] for the year preceding the recruitment of new
workers and the average AWU for the year following their
recruitment, or are those provisions to be interpreted instead as
meaning that a comparison must — or may — be made
between the average AWU for the year preceding the recruit-
ment of new workers and the exact number of workers present
on the specific day on which those new workers were recruited?

(1) OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3.

Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-416/07)

(2007/C 283/31)

Language of the case: Greek

(1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Eleni Tserepa-Lacombe and Friedrich Erlbacher)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic