CELEX: C2001/173/13
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 20 February 2001 in Case C-192/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, intervener: Justice (Citizenship of the Union — Nationality of a Member State — Declarations by the United Kingdom concerning the definition of the term "national" — British Overseas Citizen)

C 173/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.6.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    nature of the anti-dumping duty applicable under Article 1(2) of
                                                                           Regulation No 2849/92 to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi
                        of 15 February 2001                                Fujikoshi Corporation and imported by Nachi Europe GmbH.
in Case C-239/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)): Nachi Europe
                GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)
(Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping measures —
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 — Modifi-
cation of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball
bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm
originating in Japan — Reference for a preliminary ruling
on whether that regulation is valid — Failure by the
plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   annulment of the regulation)
                                                                                                of 20 February 2001
                           (2001/C 173/12)
                                                                           in Case C-192/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                    (Language of the case: German)                         Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary
                                                                           of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur,
                                                                                                intervener: Justice (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Citizenship of the Union — Nationality of a Member State
                                                                           — Declarations by the United Kingdom concerning the
In Case C-239/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              definition of the term ‘national’ — British Overseas Citizen)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
(Finance Court) Düsseldorf for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Nachi Europe                                         (2001/C 173/13)
GmbH and Hauptzollamt Krefeld — on the validity of
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of
28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping                                      (Language of the case: English)
duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external
diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by
Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2) —                        In Case C-192/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and                    Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        Office) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,          for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, intervener: Justice — on
15 February 2001, in which it has ruled:                                   the interpretation of Articles 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                           after amendment, Articles 17 EC and 18 EC), of the Declaration
                                                                           by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases
                                                                           and Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’,
T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v
                                                                           annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning the
Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Case C-245/95 P
                                                                           Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of
                                                                           United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 Sep-
                                                                           European Communities (OJ 1972 L 73, p. 196), of the new
tember 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
                                                                           Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of
of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm
                                                                           Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of the
originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 in
                                                                           term ‘nationals’ (OJ 1983 C 23, p. 1), and of Declaration No 2
so far as it fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings
                                                                           on nationality of a Member State, annexed to the Final Act of
manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation.
                                                                           the Treaty on European Union (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 98) —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
An importer of those products, such as Nachi Europe GmbH, which            C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
undoubtedly had a right of action before the Court of First Instance       (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P Puissochet,
to seek the annulment of the anti-dumping duty imposed on those            P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
goods, but which did not exercise that right, cannot subsequently          Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
plead the invalidity of that anti-dumping duty before a national           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 2001,
court. In such a case, the national court is bound by the definitive       in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 173/9
In order to determine whether a person is a national of the United         1.   The combined provisions of Article 1 and Article 4 of Council
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the purposes of               Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
Community law, it is necessary to refer to the 1982 Declaration by              the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       within Member States (maritime cabotage) permit the provision
Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’ which                of regular maritime cabotage services to, from and between
replaced the 1972 Declaration by the Government of the United                   islands to be made subject to prior administrative authorisation
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of              only if:
the term ‘nationals’, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European                   —     a real public service need arising from the inadequacy of
Communities.                                                                          the regular transport services under conditions of free
                                                                                      competition can be demonstrated;
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                —     it is also demonstrated that that prior administrative
                                                                                      authorisation scheme is necessary and proportionate to
                                                                                      the aim pursued;
                                                                                —     such a scheme is based on objective, non-discriminatory
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                criteria which are known in advance to the undertakings
                                                                                      concerned.
                        of 20 February 2001
in Case C-205/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo, Spain): Asociación Profesional de
Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares (Analir) and                        2.   Community law permits a Member State to include in the
       Others v Administración General del Estado (1)                          conditions for granting and maintaining prior administrative
                                                                                authorisation as a means of imposing public service obligations
                                                                                on a Community shipowner a condition enabling account to be
(Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage —
                                                                                taken of his solvency, such as the requirement that he have no
Conditions for the grant and continuation of prior adminis-
                                                                                outstanding tax or social security debts, thus giving the Member
trative authorisation — Concurrent application of the
                                                                                State the opportunity to check the shipowner’s ‘capacity to
methods of imposing public service obligations and of
                                                                                provide the service’, provided that such a condition is applied on
               concluding public service contracts)
                                                                                a non-discriminatory basis.
                           (2001/C 173/14)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           3.   Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 is to be interpreted as
                                                                                permitting a Member State to impose public service obligations
                                                                                on some shipping companies and, at the same time, to conclude
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                public service contracts within the meaning of Article 2(3) of
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                the regulation with others for the same line or route in order to
                                                                                ensure the same regular traffic to, from or between islands,
In Case C-205/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                      provided that a real public service need can be demonstrated
EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), Spain, for a                      and in so far as that application of the two methods concurrently
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       is on a non-discriminatory basis and is justified in relation to
court between Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras                      the public-interest objective pursued.
de Lı́neas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administración
General del Estado — on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2
and 4 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, p. 7) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet (Presi-
dents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, L. Sevón,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 2001, in
which it has ruled: