CELEX: C2001/289/22
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-275/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001, in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

13.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/11
b)   Does Article 11 of the Directive simply mean that, if a                  eligible to join the Scheme can comply with the require-
     candidate for approval to audit accounting documents in                  ment of being employed under a contract of employment,
     a Member State of the European Union has obtained,                       and by establishing that the requirement is not objectively
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation,                     justified?
     some of the required qualifications in another Member
     State, the Member State from which approval is sought
     regards those qualifications as having been obtained in
     that same State and does not introduce an exception to
     the generally applicable rule that approval is granted only
     after an examination of professional competence has
     been passed? Or is it to be interpreted as allowing a
     person holding an approval to audit accounting docu-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
     ments which has been granted to him in a Member State              Bari — Sezione distaccata di Altamura, by order of that
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation to             court of 28 June 2001 in the case of Walter Ferro against
     receive the corresponding approval in another Member                                       Giovanni Santoro
     State without being obliged to sit an examination of
     professional competence, but just on a simple finding                                       (Case C-273/01)
     that his qualifications are equivalent?
                                                                                                 (2001/C 289/21)
(1) OJ L 126, 12.5.1984, p. 20.                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari —
                                                                        Sezione distaccata di Altamura (Bari District Court, Altamura
                                                                        Division) of 28 June 2001, which was received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of Walter Ferro against Giovanni Santoro on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘whether Directive 86/653/EEC (1) on the coordination of the
                                                                        laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commer-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               cial agents and, in any event, the principles of Community law
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court              of freedom of movement and the freedom to provide services
of 22 June 2001, in the case of Debra Allonby against 1)                are to be interpreted as being compatible with national
Accrington & Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing                 legislation which makes the right of brokers to payment for
Services, 3) Secretary of State for Education and Employ-               services conditional upon their being entered in the appropri-
                               ment                                     ate register.’
                        (Case C-256/01)                                 (1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
                                                                            coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                            employed commercial agents OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
                        (2001/C 289/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 June 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
ruling in the case of Debra Allonby against 1) Accrington &             (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001,
Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing Services, 3) Sec-            in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of
retary of State for Education and Employment, on the follow-                                   Customs and Excise
ing questions:
                                                                                                 (Case C-275/01)
1.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to enable a
     woman to claim equal pay with a man in the circum-                                          (2001/C 289/22)
     stances of this case?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to entitle               European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     Mrs Allonby to claim access to the pension scheme either           (United Kingdom) of 7 June 2001, which was received at the
     (i) by comparing herself with Mr Johnson or (ii) by                Court Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     showing statistically that a considerably smaller pro-             case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
     portion of female than of male teachers who are otherwise          and Excise, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.10.2001
‘Is the grant, by the owner of premises (“the Siteholder”) to an               inconsistent findings of fact, or can it only be based on
owner of a cigarette vending machine, of the right to install,                 possible incompatible holdings of law?
operate and maintain the machine in the premises for a period
of two years, in a place nominated by the Siteholder, in return
for a percentage of the gross profits of the sales of cigarettes
and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no other               (3) If proceedings have been brought in the Courts of a
significant rights of possession or control than those set out in              Contracting State against a Defendant domiciled in that
the written agreement between the parties, capable of amount-                  State for a claim in a matter relating to contract, does
ing to the letting of immovable property with the meaning of                   Article 6(1) permit the Claimant to join as an additional
Article 13(b) of Council Directive No 77/388/EEC (1) of the                    Defendant a person domiciled in another Contracting
17th day of May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of                       State against whom his claim amounts to a matter relating
the Member States relating to turnover taxes; and what are                     to tort, delict or quasi-delict and not a matter relating to
the principles applicable in deciding whether an agreement                     contract, where (unless such a conclusion is precluded by
amounts to the letting of immovable property within such                       the different legal nature of the two claims) the national
meaning?’                                                                      Court is satisfied that the connection between the claims
                                                                               against the two Defendants is of such a kind that it is
                                                                               expedient to determine the claims together in order to
                                                                               avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 separate proceedings?
                                                                         (4) May the Claimant join the Second Defendant in reliance
                                                                               on Article 6(1) in the circumstances described in question
                                                                                3) above, where
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                     (a)   the first claim is under a contract for a package
of 27 June 2001, in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
                                                                                     holiday under which the First Defendant, the orga-
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against                               niser or provider of the holiday, accepts responsi-
1) First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels                             bility for bodily injury to the Claimant caused by
                           Caledonia SA
                                                                                     negligent acts or omissions of its agents, suppliers
                                                                                     and sub-contractors and their servants and agents
                         (Case C-280/01)                                             whilst in the course of their employment, and
                         (2001/C 289/23)
                                                                               (b) the second claim is a claim in the tort of negligence
                                                                                     against the Second Defendant, who is one of the First
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               Defendant’s agents suppliers or sub-contractors, and
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                              the claim is based upon the negligence of one or
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 27 June 2001, which was                        more of the Second Defendant’s employees or agents
received at the Court Registry on 16 July 2001, for a                                in the course of their employment?
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against 1) First
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA,
on the following questions:
(1) Is there a connection between claims which is sufficient to          (1) Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
      justify the application of Article 6(1) of the Convention (1)          enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ
      only where the risk of irreconcilable judgments can be                 1975 L 204, p. 28), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
      avoided altogether, or may it exist where it is possible by            1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      means of Article 6(1) to avoid that risk as regards                    the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
      judgments affecting the parties to the proceedings to                  1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the
      which Article 6(1) would apply although some risk of                   Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                             Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May
      irreconcilable judgments would remain as between those                 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
      proceedings, on the one hand, and a claim or claims                    Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1).
      involving one or some of those parties and one or more
      other parties, on the other hand?
(2) May a connection between claims which is sufficient to
      justify the application of Article 6(1) exist where the
      risk of irreconcilable judgments arises from possible