# C_2008107EN.01001902.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Raffaello Visciano v I.N.P.S.

(Case C-69/08)

(2008/C 107/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaello Visciano

Applicant:

Defendant: I.N.P.S.

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987 (1) of 20 October 1980 — where they provide for the payment of workers' outstanding claims relating to pay — allow such claims, when they come to be enforced against the guarantee institution, to be deprived of their initial nature as claims relating to pay and to be reclassified as social security claims merely because the payment of them has been entrusted by the Member State to a social security institution, and therefore allow the term ‘pay’ to be replaced in national law by the term ‘social security benefit’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987 (1) of 20 October 1980 — where they provide for the payment of workers' outstanding claims relating to pay — allow such claims, when they come to be enforced against the guarantee institution, to be deprived of their initial nature as claims relating to pay and to be reclassified as social security claims merely because the payment of them has been entrusted by the Member State to a social security institution, and therefore allow the term ‘pay’ to be replaced in national law by the term ‘social security benefit’?

1

| 2. | As regards the social purpose of the directive, is it sufficient for the national legislation to use the employee's initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison against which to determine per relationem the benefit to be guaranteed through the intervention of the guarantee institution or is it a requirement that the worker's claim relating to pay against the insolvent employer be protected, through the intervention of the guarantee institution, by ensuring that its scope, guarantees and time-limits and the procedures for its exercise are the same as those available for any other employment claim under the same legal order? |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards the social purpose of the directive, is it sufficient for the national legislation to use the employee's initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison against which to determine per relationem the benefit to be guaranteed through the intervention of the guarantee institution or is it a requirement that the worker's claim relating to pay against the insolvent employer be protected, through the intervention of the guarantee institution, by ensuring that its scope, guarantees and time-limits and the procedures for its exercise are the same as those available for any other employment claim under the same legal order?

| 3. | Do the principles inferable from Community legislation, and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, allow the application to employees' outstanding claims relating to pay, for the period determined in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 80/987, of limitation rules that are less favourable than those applied to claims of a similar nature? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the principles inferable from Community legislation, and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, allow the application to employees' outstanding claims relating to pay, for the period determined in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 80/987, of limitation rules that are less favourable than those applied to claims of a similar nature?

---

(1)  OJ L 283, p. 23.

1

---