CELEX: C2001/045/15
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-436/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), by decision of that court of 1 November 2000 in the case of X and Y v Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)

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: