Case C-443/00: Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cross-frontier data flow, mass communications, protection of privacy

C 45/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

1.

Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on
the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes
of informing and consulting employees,
in particular
Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong
to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking
is resident outside the the Community are obliged to
provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central
management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the
average total number of employees and their distribution
across the Member States, the establishments of the
undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
controlled by it?

2.

If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
affirmative:

the obligation to provide

Does
information also
encompass the names and addresses of the employee
representation which is to participate, on behalf of
the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings
controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating
body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in
the establishment of a European Works Council?

(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-443/00)

(2001/C 45/17)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of
the
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg.

the Legal Service of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order
to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement of such
data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and
under Article 32 of that directive;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
the field covered by the directive.

(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd

(Case C-444/00)

(2001/C 45/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
the following questions:

Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission Decision
and
Directive
96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
ingots, sheets or coils of steel:

91/156/EEC (2)

1. Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
when they have been:

a.

b.

rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or

used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
or coils of steel?