Case C-50/01: 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)
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, remuneration of work, wage earner

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?

24.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/7

(3) Does that non-aggregability render the directive inoperat-

ive or result in its partial disapplication?

(4) Can that non-aggregability be allowed in the context of
the power of the Member States to impose a ceiling on
the guarantee of payment of workers’ claims (Article 3(4)),
having regard to the fact that the Italian legislature has
already imposed a ceiling by means of Article 2(2) of the
legislative decree at issue?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre, France, by
judgment of that court of 23 November 2000 in the case
of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie
des Hauts de Seine

(Case C-56/01)

(2001/C 95/12)

(5) Consequently, must

the reference to the ‘maximum
amount of the special supplementary pay’ in the said
Article 2(2) be regarded as being made merely for formal
or accounting purposes or is it an incorporative reference
(with the consequent inclusion in Legislative Decree
to the
No 80/1992 of
special wage supplement, including the so-called non-
aggregability rule)?

the provisions giving effect

(6)

Finally, may non-aggregability be regarded as allowed in
the context of the power of the Member States to adopt
the measures necessary to avoid abuses (Article 10(a))?

(1) Council Directive 80/987 of 20 October 1980 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection
of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer —
OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgement of the Tribunal des
Affaires de Sécurité Sociale (Social Security Court), Nanterre,
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 9 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie
des Hauts de Seine, on the following question;

‘Is Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) compatible
with Articles 59 [now, after amendment, Article 49 EC] and
60 [now Article 50 EC] of the Treaty of Rome? Consequently,
is the Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine
entitled to refuse Ms Inizan reimbursement of the costs of
psychosomatic pain treatment in Essen, Germany, following
an unfavourable opinion from the National Medical Officer?’

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community (amended and updated version, OJ 1997
L 28, p. 4).