CELEX: C2002/323/21
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrakopoulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko Dimosio (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to all persons providing services, irrespective of their nationality, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community transport and transport to third countries)

21.12.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 323/17
2.    On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/                directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the                   and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
      grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the              down by Article 10 of that directive.
      main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
      territory of the competent Member State, that condition must           2.    In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
      be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of          several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
      another Member State.                                                        and I B to Directive 92/50, far from depriving it of its
                                                                                   effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
                                                                                   directive. When, following the classification thus made by
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                       reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
                                                                                   Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
                                                                                   Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
                                                                                   Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
                                                                                   authority to separate from the contract in question the services
                                                                                   referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
                                                                                   respect of them.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
                                                                                   the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
                                                                                   50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
                                                                                   that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
                       of 14 November 2002                                         the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
                                                                                   In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                               cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v                                   in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
                Österreichische Nationalbank (1),                                  Annex I A to the Directive.
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope                      (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
                              Annex I B)
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2002/C 323/20)
                                                                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 14 November 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
                                                                             Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
                                                                             OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
                                                                             Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                               Dimosio (1)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the                        (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June                     services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                      all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),                     ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                              transport and transport to third countries)
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,                                             (2002/C 323/21)
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The determination of the regime applicable to public service                                in the European Court Reports)
      contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
      to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the       EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/18                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
between Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Geor-
giou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos
Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Dimitrakopoulos and NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou,
Elliniko Dimosio, on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                             of 24 October 2002
transport between Member States and between Member States
and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communi-
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of
                                                                             workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances
                                                                             appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transpo-
                                                                                                             sition)
1.    Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
      22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
                                                                                                       (2002/C 323/22)
      provide services to maritime transport between Member States
      and between Member States and third countries precludes the
      application in a Member State of different harbour dues for
      domestic or intra-Community traffic and traffic between a                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member State and a third country if that difference is not
      objectively justified.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    The imposition on passengers of vessels that call at or whose
      final destination is a port in a third country of different harbour
      dues from those imposed on passengers of vessels whose
      destination is domestic or in another Member State, without            In Case C-455/00, Commission of the European Communities
      there being any correlation between that difference and the cost       (agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      of the harbour services enjoyed by those categories of passengers,     by D. Del Gaizo, avvocata dello Stato): Application for a
      amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services            declaration that:
      contrary to Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
                                                                                   workers who use display screen equipment for the
                                                                                   purposes of Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC
3.    Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86 does not permit the                       of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
      imposition, for journeys to ports in third countries, of harbour             requirements for work with display screen equipment
      dues that vary according to criteria relating to the distance of             (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      those ports or their geographical location if the difference in the          Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156,
      dues is not objectively justified by differences in the way                  p. 14);
      passengers are treated on account of their destination or the
      place from which they have come.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure a supplementary opthalmological
                                                                                   examination in all cases where regular eye and eyesight
                                                                                   tests show that this is necessary; and
                                                                             —     by failing to specify the circumstances in which the
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                         workers concerned are to be provided with special
                                                                                   corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned,
                                                                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                   under Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of that directive,
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
                                                                             President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
                                                                             Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)