Case C-455/00: Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, medical examination, occupational health, video display unit work

C 79/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 12 October 2000

in Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid)

(2001/C 79/18)

(Language of the case: Greek)

band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen (5) Verband
der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V.
(6) AEV — Arbeiter-
Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkasse and (8) Bundes-
knappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal Republic of Germany,
and (2) Bundesausschuss der A¨ rzte und Krankenkassen on the
following questions:

1. Must statutory sickness funds and the associations thereof
which are subject to State supervision be regarded as
undertakings or associations of undertakings within the
meaning of Article 81 et seq. EC for the purpose of the
joint determination of the level of uniform fixed amounts
for medicinal products to which the funds’ liability is
limited in relation to the insured persons?

(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

2.

In Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and
C. Tsiavou) v Commission of the European Communities
J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
(Agents:
suspension of operation, primarily, of Commission Decision
E(2000) 686 final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid
schemes implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994 including
aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO,
alternatively of Article 2 of that decision — the President of
the Court has made an order on 12 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

The costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
does determination of a fixed amount as referred to in
the first question constitute an agreement which restricts
competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC?

3. Do Articles 81 and 86 EC preclude legislation giving
social security funds and associations thereof the power
to determine fixed amounts of the kind referred to in the
first question for medicinal products?

Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-455/00)

(2001/C 79/20)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial-
gericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of
28 September 2000 in the case of Merz + Co. GmbH &
Co. v (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bun-
desverband der
landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen
(5)Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV
— Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkas-
se and (8) Bundesknappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal
Republic of Germany, and (2) Bundesausschuss der A¨ rzte
und Krankenkassen

(Case C-428/00)

(2001/C 79/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht
Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higer Social Court of North Rhine-
Westphalia) of 28 September 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 20 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bundesver-

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) of Council Directive
90/270/EEC (1) of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety
and health requirements for work with display screen
equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), inasmuch as
it:

(a)

does not ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
workers who use display screen equipment within
the meaning of Article 2(c) of the abovementioned
directive;

10.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/11

(b) does not ensure that an additional ophthalmological
test is carried out whenever necessary as a result of
the regular eye and eyesight tests;

(c)

does not define the conditions for providing the
appliances
concerned with corrective
workers
appropriate for the work concerned.

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— According to Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC,
workers are
‘special corrective
entitled to receive
appliances appropriate for the work concerned’, where
this proves necessary following testing and the wearing
of normal corrective appliances is not possible. Such a
provision is the logical and necessary corollary to rules
requiring the carrying out of eye and eyesight tests, and
examination by an oculist where necessary, with a view
to offering complete protection of the health and safety
of workers at risk.

— However, in Article 55 of Decree-Law 626/94 no pro-
vision is made which expressly guarantees such a right.
Article 55(5) merely states:
‘expenditure in respect of
providing special corrective appliances appropriate for
the work concerned is to be borne by the employer’,
which is clear, but not sufficient to identify the precise
criterion establishing the right of workers to benefit from
such provisions.

The Commission finds that the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) insofar as:

(1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
(2) Council Directive of 12 June 1989, OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

— Italian legislation is to be regarded as incompatible with
Directive 90/270/EEC as regards regular eye and eyesight
tests for workers who have commenced work with display
screen equipment. Article 9(1) of the abovementioned
directive provides that all workers working on display
screen equipment are entitled to regular eye and eyesight
tests after commencing display screen work in order to
prevent visual difficulties which may be due to display
screen work, as well as other possible illness, connected
with overexposure to radiation emitted by display equip-
ment. The workers concerned,
therefore, are to be
regarded as workers at risk for the purposes of Directive
89/391. However, according to the wording of Article
55(2) of Decree Law No 626/94, regular tests to take
place at least every two years, are made available only to
two specific classes of worker: those who were initially
classified as fit, with corrective lenses, for work on display
equipment and those over 45 years of age. Workers
under 45 years of age who were initially passed fit to
work on video equipment without corrective lenses are
thus wholly excluded from the protection afforded by
Article 9(1) of the directive.

— However, the Commission would draw attention to the
fact
the Italian
that workers excluded by virtue of
legislation from the regular eye and eyesight tests pro-
vided for by Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC are
in practice excluded also from the ophthalmological
examination provided for by Article 9(2), since usually it
is the former test which shows signs of eyesight problems.
In any event, even if Article 55(4) of Decree-Law 626/94
mentions the possibility of such an examination, the
legislation does not offer any assurance that it will be
carried out in every case where the normal regular eye
and eyesight test shows that further analysis is necessary,
thus significantly reducing the level of protection pro-
vided for by the directive itself.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of
15 December 2000 in the case of Primetzhofer Stahl- und
Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich

(Case C-464/00)

(2001/C 79/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 December 2000 by the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Primetzhofer
Stahl- und Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich on the
following questions:

(a) Do the rules of a Member State under which the court
(the independent body) in the review procedure must also
act of its own motion and determine the course of the
preliminary investigation constitute an infringement of
the first half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of
Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrat-
ive provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts? (1)