Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:128
Date: 1998-06-17
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Social Policy
Concepts: General;Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual con­
cern to them — Directive implementing the framework agreement on parental leave — Leg-
islative measure — Action brought by an association representing and defending at European
level the interests of small and medium-sized undertakings — Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 189; Agreement on social policy, Arts 3 and 4; Council
Directive 96/34)
2. Social policy — Agreement on social policy — Agreements between management and labour
— Implementation by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission — Requirement
— Observance of the principle of democracy — Representativity of the signatories to the
agreement
(Agreement on social policy, Arts 3(4) and 4)
II - 2335
SUMMARY — CASE T-135/96
1. The application for annulment of Direc­
tive 96/34 on the framework agreement
on parental leave concluded by the Union
des Confédérations de l'Industrie et des
Employeurs d'Europe, the Centre
Européen de l'Entreprise Publique and
the Confédération Européenne des Syn­
dicats, which was brought by a European
association which represents and defends
at European level the interests of small
and medium-sized undertakings, is inad­
missible.
In the first place, Directive 96/34,
adopted by the Council on the basis of
Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social
policy concluded between the Member
States of the European Community with
the exception of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is a
legislative measure and does not consti­
tute a decision within the meaning of
Article 189 of the Treaty.
The framework agreement on parental
leave which the Directive is designed to
implement lays down minimum require­
ments designed to facilitate the reconcili­
ation of parental and professional respon­
sibilities for working parents and applies
to all workers — men and women —
who have an employment contract or
employment relationship as defined by
the law, collective agreements or practices
in force in each Member State. Further­
more, Directive 96/34 satisfies the
requirements laid down by Article 189 of
the Treaty, since it is addressed to the
Member States, which are required to
take all necessary measures which will
enable them at any time to guarantee the
results required by the Directive and the
wording of the framework agreement to
which it refers leaves to the national
authorities the choice of form and meth­
ods which will enable those results to be
achieved.
Moreover, the applicant association has
not been affected by the contested Direc­
tive by reason of certain attributes pecu­
liar to it or by reason of circumstances
which differentiate it from all other per­
sons, such that it could be considered to
be individually concerned by that mea­
sure.
First, the applicant association cannot
claim to possess either a general right to
participate in the negotiation stage of the
second procedure provided for by Article
4(2) of the Agreement on social policy or,
in the context of this case, an individual
right to participate in negotiation of the
framework agreement. Article 3(2), (3)
and (4) and Article 4 of the Agreement do
not confer on any representative of man­
agement and labour, whatever the inter­
ests purportedly represented, a general
right to take part in any negotiations
entered into in accordance with Article
3(4) of the Agreement, even though it is
open to any representative of manage­
ment and labour which has been con­
sulted pursuant to Article 3(2) and (3) of
the Agreement to initiate such negotia­
tions. The mere fact that the applicant
contacted the Commission on several
occasions asking to participate in the
negotiations between other representa­
tives of management and labour does not
affect that position, since it is the repre­
sentatives of management and labour
concerned, and not the Commission,
which have charge of the negotiation
stage properly so called.
II - 2336
UEAPME v COUNCIL
Secondly, since, having regard to its rep¬
resentativity, the applicant is not distin­
guished from all other organisations of
management and labour consulted by the
Commission which were not signatories
to the framework agreement, it is not
entitled to require the Council to prevent
the implementation of the framework
agreement at Community level. Conse­
quently, the applicant is not individually
concerned by Directive 96/34.
Although it is incumbent upon the Com­
mission and the Council to ascertain
whether, having regard to the content of
the agreement in question, the signatories
to an agreement concluded pursuant to
Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Agreement on
social policy, taken together, are suffi­
ciently representative, and although rep­
resentatives of management and labour
which were consulted by the Commis­
sion in accordance with Article 3(2) and
(3) of the Agreement, but which were not
parties to the agreement, and whose par­
ticular representation — again in relation
to the content of the agreement — is ne­
cessary in order to raise the collective
representativity of the signatories to the
required level, have the right to prevent
the Commission and the Council from
implementing the agreement at Commu­
nity level by means of a legislative instru­
ment, it is apparent in the present case
that the Commission and the Council
properly took the view that the collective
representativity of the signatories to the
framework agreement was sufficient in
relation to that agreement's content for
its implementation at Community level
by means of a Council legislative mea­
sure.
2. The Commission and the Council are
obliged to verify the representativity of
the signatories to an agreement concluded
pursuant to Articles 3(4) and 4 of the
Agreement, which the Council has been
asked to implement at Community level.
That means that they must verify
whether, having regard to the content of
the agreement in question, the collective
representativity of the signatories repre­
senting management and labout was suf­
ficient.
The participation of the two institutions
in question has the effect, at that particu­
lar point in the procedure governed by
those provisions, of endowing an agree­
ment concluded between management
and labour with a Community founda­
tion of a legislative character, without
recourse to the classic procedures pro­
vided for under the Treaty for the prepa­
ration of legislation, which entail the par­
ticipation of the European Parliament.
However, since the procedure referred to
in Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Agreement
does not provide for the participation of
the European Parliament, the principle of
democracy on which the Union is
founded requires — in the absence of the
participation of the European Parliament
in the legislative process — that the par­
ticipation of the people be otherwise
assured, in this instance through the par­
ties representative of management and
labour who concluded the agreement
which is endowed by the Council, acting
on a qualified majority, on a proposal
from the Commission, with a legislative
foundation at Community level.
II - 2337