G. C. Allen and Others v Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd (C-234/98)

Judgment of 2 Dec 1999

law://eu/cjeu/1998/c-234-98/para_30@2026-11-12

30Although, as far as this case is concerned, the driving of underground tunnels cannot be considered to be an activity based essentially on manpower since it requires a significant amount of plant and equipment, it is clear from the order for reference that, in the mining sector, it is common for the essential assets required for driveage work to be provided by the mine owner himself. For instance, AMS, as subcontractor, was able to use the equipment which RJB previously made available to ACC. The fact that ownership of the assets required to run the undertaking did not pass to the new owner does not preclude a transfer (see Ny Mølle Kro and Daddy's Dance Hall, cited above, and Case C-209/91 Watson Rask and Christensen [1992] ECR I-5755). In the circumstances, the fact that there was no transfer of assets between ACC and AMS is not of decisive importance.

G. C. Allen and Others v Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd (C-234/98)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections