Case C-65/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, occupational safety, protective equipment

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/13

4.

If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is
Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under
Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive
when an existing body has the task of providing compen-
sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
relevant authority of the Member State that does not
correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
those respects, and:

a)

b)

c)

that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
the relevant authority of
the Member State to
provide compensation to victims which is directly
enforceable by the relevant authority and does not
give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to
claim against that body, but the victim may apply to
the Court for an order that the authority should
enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to
do so; and

that body carries out that obligation by accepting
and paying claims from victims in accordance with
that agreement; and

the Member State considered in good faith that the
provision of that agreement gave at least as good
protection to victims as the requirements of the
Second Motor Insurance Directive?

5.

If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
matter of Community law if it is established that such
damage was caused?

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.

Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-65/01)

(2001/C 118/20)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989
concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
for the use of work equipment by workers at work
(second individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian

Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
point 2.8.

The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
law.

(1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
(2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel

(Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)

(2001/C 118/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
ties, preclude national
legislation which makes it an
offence when marketing foodstuffs: