Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Submission during the procedure before the Court of a factual background different from that described in the referring judgment - Obligation of the Court to confine itself to the factual background as set out in that judgment

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

2 Social policy - Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987 - Member States' option of setting a ceiling on the payment guarantee in respect of employees' outstanding claims - Duty to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in that area - Scope - Infringement - Consequences

(Council Directive 80/987, Arts 4(3) and 11)

Summary

1 Under Article 177 of the Treaty, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court. The Court of Justice is thus empowered to rule on the interpretation or validity of Community provisions only on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it. Moreover, to alter the substance of questions referred for a preliminary ruling would be incompatible with the Court's function under Article 177 of the Treaty and with its duty to ensure that the Governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations under Article 20 of the Statute of the Court, bearing in mind that, under that provision, only the order of the referring court is notified to the interested parties.

2 Articles 4(3) and 11 of Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer do not preclude the application of national provisions setting a ceiling on the payment guarantee in respect of employees' outstanding claims, where the Member State has failed to inform the Commission of the methods used to set that ceiling.

It does not follow from the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 80/987, which requires Member States that have set a ceiling to the liability for employees' outstanding claims, as the preceding subparagraph authorises them to do, to inform the Commission of the methods used to set that ceiling, that that duty gives rise to a Community procedure for monitoring the methods chosen by the Member State, or that Member States' exercise of the option to set a ceiling is subject to the express or implied agreement of the Commission. Moreover, neither the wording nor the purpose of the abovementioned provision provides justification for the view that Member States' non-compliance with their obligation to give prior notice in itself renders the ceilings thus adopted unlawful.

Thus the purpose of the obligation to give notice laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) is simply to inform the Commission whether Member States have exercised the option referred to in the preceding subparagraph and, if so, in what manner.

As for Article 11(2) of the Directive, which requires Member States to communicate to the Commission the texts of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which they adopt in the field governed by the Directive, it is clear from that provision that it concerns relations between the Member States and the Commission and confers no right upon individuals which could be infringed in the event of a breach by a Member State of the obligation to give prior notice to the Commission of the methods used to set the ceiling referred to in Article 4(3) of the Directive.