Case C-48/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, occupational health, protective equipment, safety standard

C 95/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2001

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case to the

Court having jurisdiction in the matter;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

before both Community Courts.

or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5th December 1995 (1)
amending Directive 89/655/EEC (2) concerning the mini-
mum safety and health requirements for the use of work
equipment by workers at work and/or failing to inform
the Commission thereof and

— condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1)

The legal definition of the action at first instance

Pleas in law and main arguments

Having regard to the action at first instance, and bearing
in mind the fact that the formal
issue of the legal
definition thereof cannot be regarded as precluding the
admissibility of an action, it appears permissible to argue
that the grounds set out on that point in the order under
appeal ought to be censured in their entirety.

Article 249 EC, 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 5 December 1998 without Ireland having enacted
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the conclusions of the Commission.

(2)

The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance

(1) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13.

It
is clear that, since this case involves a dispute
between a Community institution and the member of a
consultative committee established by that institution,
the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to deal with
the dispute.

It is further evident that, pursuant to Article 91 of
the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other
servants of the European Communities, the Court of
Justice has jurisdiction in any dispute between the
Community and ‘any person to whom these Staff
Regulations apply’. Since the Court of First Instance
ruled that it lacked jurisdiction in favour of the Court of
Justice, the Court of First Instance ought, of its own
motion,
the application was
forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.

to have ensured that

Action brought on 5 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-48/01)

(2001/C 95/10)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ms Nicola Yerrell, Member of its legal Service, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Go´ mez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre
Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

The Applicant requests that the Court should:

— find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Siena, by order of that court of 26 January 2001 in
the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

(Case C-50/01)

(2001/C 95/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Siena
(District Court, Siena) of 26 January 2001, which was received
at the Court Registry on 5 February 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following questions:

Is the rule precluding aggregation of the accounting value of
the special supplementary pay with the payments made to a
worker in the reference period (Article 2(4) of Legislative
Decree No 80/1992) compatible — inter alia in the light of
past ruling of the Court of Justice concerning that decree —
with EEC Directive 987/80 (1), and in particular:

(1) Can that non-aggregability be regarded as conforming
with the purpose of
the directive which appears
(Article 3(1)) to be to ensure the payment of outstanding
claims in respect of wages arising within a specified time
span (Article 3(2)) and in respect of a certain period
(Article 4(1) and (2))? or

(2) Does that non-aggregability reflect a rule concerning
assistance, not conforming with the social criterion on
which Directive 987/80 is based?