CELEX: C2002/156/05
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-48/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 19 December 2001 in the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD, Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

29.6.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 156/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Appeal brought on 25 March 2002 by the European
gericht by order of that Court of 19 December 2001 in                  Parliament against the judgment delivered on 23 January
the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,                2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against              of the European Communities in Case T-237/00 between
                   Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                                   Patrick Reynolds and the European Parliament.
                                                                                               (Case C-111/02 P)
                         (Case C-48/02)
                                                                                                (2002/C 156/06)
                        (2002/C 156/05)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2002
                                                                       by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-237/00 between Patrick
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Reynolds and the European Parliament was brought before the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 March
(Federal Social Court) of 19 December 2001, received at the            2002 by the European Parliament, represented by Hannu von
Court Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling           Hertzen and Dominique Moore, acting as Agents, with an
in the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,             address for service in Luxembourg.
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                         Instance;
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting             —     decide the case definitively, by dismissing as unfounded
     a Member State of the Community from introducing                        the applications for annulment and for compensation;
     national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-
     ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down             —     alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First
     new restrictions on access to the employment market for                 Instance so that it may determine anew Mr Reynolds’
     Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on                   applications for annulment and for compensation;
     introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
     No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first            —     make such costs order as may be appropriate.
     legally resident and employed?
2.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              Pleas in law and main arguments
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
     of the Association between the European Economic                  —     Insufficiency of the reasoning of the Court of First
     Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers                      Instance concerning the obligation of the appointing
     employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers                 authority to comply with the ‘minimum conditions’ in
     engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through                order to terminate the secondment of an official in the
     a Member State of the Community without belonging to                    interests of the service to the post of secretary-general of
     the legitimate labour force of that Member State?                       a political group.
3.   Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-          —     Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the
     ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association                   powers of the appointing authority.
     between the European Economic Community and Turkey
     to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker is             —     Contradictory reasoning concerning the alleged discretion
     entitled to plead restriction, contrary to that protocol, of            of the appointing authority.
     the freedom to provide services?
                                                                       —     Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the
                                                                             rights of the defence.
4.   Does a restriction on the freedom to provide services
     within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional             —     Insufficient and contradictory reasoning concerning the
     Protocol exist where a Member State of the Community,                   significance of the consequences of reintegration on the
     from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,                   material situation of the person seconded.
     abolishes a previously-existing exemption from the
     requirement to have a work permit for Turkish lorry               —     If the Parliament has not committed any unlawful act by
     drivers engaged in international haulage who are                        adopting the contested decision, there can be no question,
     employed by a (Turkish) employer, established in Turkey?                in the present case, of the Community incurring any non-
                                                                             contractual liability.