Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2004/201/20

    Case C-233/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the case of Ms Gül Demir against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Security GmbH & Co. KG.

    JO C 201, 7.8.2004, p. 11–11 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    7.8.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 201/11

    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the case of Ms Gül Demir against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Security GmbH & Co. KG.

    (Case C-233/04)

    (2004/C 201/20)

    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Labour Court, Düsseldorf) (Germany) of 5 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms Gül Demir against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Security GmbH & Co. KG, on the following question:

    1.

    In examining whether there is — irrespective of the question of ownership — a transfer of a business within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) in the context of a fresh award of a contract, does the transfer of the assets from the original contractor to the new contractor — having regard to all the facts — presuppose their transfer for independent commercial use by the transferee? By extension, is conferment on the contractor of a right to determine the manner in which the assets are to be used in its own commercial interest the essential criterion for a transfer of assets? On that basis, is it necessary to determine the operational significance of the contracting authority's assets for the service provided by the contractor?

    2.

    If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:

    (a)

    Is it precluded to classify assets as being for independent commercial use if they are made available to the contractor by the contracting authority solely for their use and responsibility for maintaining those assets, including the associated costs, is borne by the contracting authority?

    (b)

    Is there independent commercial use by the contractor when, for the purpose of conducting airport security checks, it uses the walk-through metal detectors, hand-held metal detectors and X-ray equipment supplied by the contracting authority?

    (1)   OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

    Top