CELEX: C2001/045/16
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-440/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne &#38; Nagel AG &#38; Co. KG against Kühne &#38; Nagel AG &#38; Co. KG

10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                            of that kind also contrary to the abovementioned regu-
Protodikio Rodou by judgment of that court of 10 July                          lation, because it constitutes discrimination as regards
2000 in the case of GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others                          maritime transport to a particular third country (or
against the Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou and the Greek                           particular third countries) and therefore a restriction on
                               State                                           maritime transport provided to that country (or those
                                                                               countries)?
                         (Case C-435/00)
                          (2001/C 45/14)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt-
                                                                         en (Supreme Administrative Court), by decision of that
                                                                         court of 1 November 2000 in the case of X and Y v
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
European Communities by judgment of the the Diikitiko
Protodikio Rodou (Administrative Court of First Instance,
Rhodes) of 10 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on                                       (Case C-436/00)
27 November 2000 for a preliminary ruling in the case of
GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others against Limeniko Tamio                                          (2001/C 45/15)
Dodekanisou (Dodecanese Harbour Fund) and the Greek State
on the following questions:                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
                                                                         of 1 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
(a)  Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 to              on 27 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a             X and Y v Riksskatteverket on the following question:
     Member State from imposing restrictions in respect of
     the provision of maritime transport services between
     Member States and third countries generally, even if those          In a situation such as that in the present case, do Articles 43,
                                                                         46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude the application of a Member
     restrictions are imposed without distinction on all vessels,
                                                                         State’s legislation which like the relevant Swedish legislation
     whether they are used by its own nationals providing
     services or by nationals of other Member States, and on             — has the effect that a capital contribution in the form of a
                                                                         transfer of shares at undervalue is taxed less advantageously if
     all passengers irrespective of nationality, or is it to be
                                                                         the contribution is to a legal person which is domiciled in
     interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a Mem-
     ber State from introducing restrictions only in respect of          another Member State and in which the transferor directly or
                                                                         indirectly has a holding or to a domestic limited company in
     the provision of services between another Member State
     and a third country, reserving in that way more favourable          which such a legal person has a holding, than would have
     treatment to domestic carriers who provide maritime                 been the case if there had been no such foreign proprietorial
                                                                         interests.
     transport to third countries compared with carriers who
     are nationals of the other Member States?
(b) May a Member State impose different (higher) harbour
     dues for the passengers of vessels which call at, or have
     as their final destination, a port of a third (non-European
     Union) country than the dues which are imposed on                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
     passengers whose destinations are domestic ports or                 gericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case
     ports in the other Member States of the European Union,             of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
     even if those dues in both the above cases are imposed                          against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
     on all passengers irrespective of their nationality or that
     of the vessels, or does a provision of that kind constitute
                                                                                                 (Case C-440/00)
     a restriction on the freedom to transport passengers to
     third countries because the higher dues might have an
     effect on the choice of routes, so that that provision is                                    (2001/C 45/16)
     inconsistent with Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(c)  If the answer is in the negative, is it possible for the            (Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2000, received at the Court
     harbour dues which are imposed on passengers whose                  Registry on 29 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
     destinations are ports of third countries to be differen-           the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co.
     tiated still further, according to the third country, on the        KG (Central Works Council of Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG)
     basis of the criterion of the distance of the ports or their        against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG on the following
     geographical location, or is a national legislative provision       questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
1.   Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on          (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     the establishment of a European Works Council or a
     procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
     munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes              Pleas in law and main arguments
     of informing and consulting employees, in particular
     Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking          of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
     is resident outside the the Community are obliged to              obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
     provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central          into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
     management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)             expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
     and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the         prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
     average total number of employees and their distribution          1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
     across the Member States, the establishments of the               the field covered by the directive.
     undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
     the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
     controlled by it?                                                 (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
2.   If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     affirmative:
     Does the obligation to provide information also
     encompass the names and addresses of the employee
     representation which is to participate, on behalf of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
     the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings              of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
     controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating      Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
     body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in          vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
     the establishment of a European Works Council?                    of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
                                                                       Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                     Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
                                                                                    Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd
                                                                                                 (Case C-444/00)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 45/18)
Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                         lic of Germany
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
                                                                       trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
                        (Case C-443/00)                                Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
                         (2001/C 45/17)                                Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
                                                                       of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by              the following questions:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal        Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,                 ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the                  Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre                  Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and Commission Decision
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
                                                                       separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
                                                                       ingots, sheets or coils of steel:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order             1.    Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
     to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European                       be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
     Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on                     when they have been:
     the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
     of personal data and on the free movement of such                       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or
     data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and                     b.     used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
     under Article 32 of that directive;                                           or coils of steel?