CELEX: C1999/204/67
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-205/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo (Division for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) Sección Tercera (Third Chamber) by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (ANALIR), Isleña de Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamentos de Baleares S.A. and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) against Administración del Estado

17.7.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 204/33
(b) the state of the case so permitting, annul Commission                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     Decision 94/215/ECSC (1) of 16 February 1994 relating to            Düsseldorf by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in
     a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty              the case of Deutsche Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt
     concerning agreements and concerted practices (allegedly)                                      Düsseldorf
     engaged in by European producers of beams;
                                                                                                 (Case C-201/99)
(c) alternatively, reduce or cancel the fine set by the Court of
     First Instance imposed on British Steel by Article 4 of                                     (1999/C 204/66)
     Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(d) order interest to be paid by the Commission on the fine or           European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of
     such part of it as is repaid under (b) or (c) above, in respect     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of
     of the period since payment of the fine by British Steel on         12 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
     2 June 1994 until repayment by the Commission and at                26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutsche
     such rate as is considered by the Court to be fair and just;        Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf on the following
                                                                         questions:
(e) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         1. Is the definition of television receivers in heading No 8528
                                                                             of the Combined Nomenclature in the version in force
                                                                             from 1990 to 1992 to be interpreted as including devices
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              such as the satellite receivers more precisely described in
                                                                             the grounds of this order, even though with those devices
                                                                             television programmes can be made visible and audible
It is submitted, in summary, that the Court of First Instance                only with television receivers of domestic type?
erred in law in the following respects:
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the definition
                                                                             of parts in heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomen-
(a) in denying British Steel a fair trial within a reasonable                clature or in Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined
     period, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention                Nomenclature in the version in force from 1990 to 1992
     for the Protection of Human Rights;                                     to be interpreted as including devices such as the satellite
                                                                             receivers more precisely described in the grounds of this
(b) in finding that the Decision had been adopted and                        order, and are those devices then to be classified under
     authenticated in conformity with the requisite rules and                heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomenclature despite
     procedures,                                                             Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined Nomenclature?
(c) in characterising the facts as agreements or concerted
     practices prohibited by Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty,
     in disregard of its own findings as to the nature and
     purpose of the contacts taking place between the undertak-
     ings within the framework of the Commission’s monitor-
     ing system and contrary to the meaning of Article 65(1);
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
                                                                         mo (Supreme Court) Sala de lo Contencioso-
(d) in finding, contrary to the rights of defence, that, during the      administrativo (Division for Contentious Administrative
     administrative procedure, the Commission had provided               Proceedings) Sección Tercera (Third Chamber) by order
     British Steel with sufficient information concerning its            of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Asociación
     own role and had carried out an adequate investigation              Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares
     into its own role;                                                  (ANALIR), Isleña de Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamen-
                                                                         tos de Baleares S.A. and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)
                                                                                      against Administración del Estado
(e) in finding that the Decision contained an adequate state-
     ment of reasons for the fine imposed on British Steel;
                                                                                                 (Case C-205/99)
(f) in failing, contrary to Article 33 of the Treaty, to annul the
     Decision to the extent that it had found that British Steel                                 (1999/C 204/67)
     had committed infringements of Article 65(1) prior to
     1 July 1988.                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                         Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección Tercera of
                                                                         12 May 1999, received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999,
(1) OJ L 116, 06.05.1994, p. 1.                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Asociación Profesional
                                                                         de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares (ANALIR), Isleña de
                                                                         Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamentos de Baleares S.A. and
                                                                         Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) against Administración del
                                                                         Estado on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/34               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
1. May Article 4, in conjunction with Article 1, of Council            Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
     Regulation No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the             European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                         Luxembourg
     transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) be
     interpreted as permitting the provision of island cabotage                                 (Case C-210/99)
     services by undertakings covering regular shipping lines
     to be made subject to obtaining prior administrative
     authorisation?                                                                             (1999/C 204/69)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
2. If so, may the grant and continuation of such administrat-          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     ive authorisation be made subject to the satisfaction of          ties on l June 1999 by the Commission of the European
     conditions such as fulfilment of fiscal and social security       Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
     obligations, distinct from those set out in Article 4(2) of       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     the Regulation?                                                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
3. May Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 be interpreted
     as permitting, in relation to one line or maritime route,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     public service obligations to be imposed on some shipping
     companies while, at the same time, public service contracts,      1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
     within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Regulation, are              laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     concluded with others, in order to ensure regular services             to comply with Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June
     to, from or between islands?                                           1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings (1), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that directive; and
(1) OJ No L 364 of 12 December.1992, p. 7.
                                                                       2. Order the Grand Duchy of̀ Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
                                                                       Article 16(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70.
                                                                       (2) See this OJ p. 28.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-
richt Bonn by order of that court of 22 April 1999 in the
          case of Birgit Frings v Blendermann GmbH
                         (Case C-209/99)
                                                                       Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                         (1999/C 204/68)                                                          Luxembourg
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                          (Case C-211/99)
European Communities by an order of the Third Chamber of
the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Labour Court, Bonn) of 22 April                                        (1999/C 204/70)
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 1 June
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Birgit Frings v
Blendermann GmbH on the following question:                            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Is there a breach of the prohibition under European law of             Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
indirect discrimination on grounds of sex if national appli-           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
cation of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Protection                the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its legal Service,
against Dismissal) has the result that, where the amount of            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
work required is reduced for operational reasons, if the
employer has made a business decision to maintain the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
full-time posts occupied, then because of lack of comparability
no selection on social grounds takes place between part-time           1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
and full-time employees, even though the part-time employee                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
is prepared to accept a full-time post?                                     to comply with Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June
                                                                            1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                            and the charging of infrastructure fees (1), the Grand Duchy
                                                                            of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive; and