Case C-441/00: Action brought on 29 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, high-speed transport, rail transport

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-407/00 (2); the transposition period expired
on 16 February 1999.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala de lo
Social, by order of that court of 27 October 2000 in the
case of A´ ngel Rodrı´guez Caballero against Fondo de
Garantı´a Salarial (FOGASA)

(1) OJ L 101 of 1.4.1998, p. 1.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 29 November 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-441/00)

(2001/C 28/44)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 29 November 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Go´ mez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 96/48/EC (1) of 23 July 1996 on the
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
system,
its
obligations under that Directive.

the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 8 April 1999
without the United Kingdom having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission.

(Case C-442/00)

(2001/C 28/45)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior de
Justicia, Sala de lo Social
Justice, Social
Chamber), Castilla-La Mancha, Spain, of 27 October 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A´ ngel Rodrı´guez Caballero
against Fondo de Garantı´a Salarial (Wages Guarantee Fund,
FOGASA) on the following questions:

(High Court of

(a)

(b)

(c)

Should a concept of the kind at issue in the present
proceedings, namely remuneration which is payable by
the employer to the employee as a result of the dismissal
being unfair, be regarded as
falling within those
‘employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment
or employment relationships’ referred to in Article 1(1)
of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980
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?

In the affirmative, is there an obligation under Article
1(1) of Directive 80/987 to determine employees’ claims
by way of either a judicial decision or an administrative
decision, and should such claims include all
those
employee claims upheld in the course of any other
procedure recognised at law and judicially reviewable,
such as conciliation, a compulsory procedure conducted
before a court, which must encourage the parties to
negotiate before commencing any legal proceedings and
approve the terms of any agreement, and may prevent an
agreement being concluded if it considers that the terms
of the agreement would seriously prejudice one of the
parties or amount to a circumvention of the law or an
abuse of process?

In the event that post-dismissal remuneration agreed
upon in a court-supervised conciliation and approved by
the court does fall within the scope of ‘employees’ claims’,
may the national court responsible for giving judgment
in the proceedings refrain from applying a provision of
national law which excludes the employee’s claim for
such remuneration from the scope of matters for which
the national state guarantee institution, the Fondo de
Garantia Salarial, is responsible and apply Article 1(1) of
the directive directly on the ground that it considers the
provision to be clear, precise and unconditional?

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.