Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/97/EC — Implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes — Failure to transpose)
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, equal treatment, gender equality, national implementing measure, social security

5.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 December 2000

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte
delle Piacentine and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA)

in Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/97/EC —
Implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
and women in occupational social security schemes — Failure
to transpose)

(2001/C 134/04)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Gouloussis and A. Aresu) v Hellenic Republic
(Agents: S. Vodina and N. Dafniou) — application for a
declaration that, by failing to bring into force, alternatively
by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive
96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive
86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
treatment for men and women in occupational social security
schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20), the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Admin-
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 Decem-
ber 2000, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December
1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation
of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(Case C-489/00)

(2001/C 134/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte delle Piacentine
and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo (AIMA) on the following questions:

(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?

If not,

(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
provide that derogations may be made from the periods
prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
provisions?

(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
as meaning that the application of the system introduced
by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
which that State is guaranteed?

(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
exclude individual notification to those producers?

(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.

(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.