Case C-125/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig, by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
Date: 2001-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, pay, social security

C 161/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.6.2001

b)

F a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h A r t i c l e 1 0 o f
D i r e c t i v e 9 4 / 4 7 / E C

3.

Is the Chamber obliged, pursuant to the case-law of the
Court of Justice, to refrain from applying the provision
concerning the prescriptive period?

Article 12 of Decree No 427/98 does not lay down any
penalties or specify any other type of consequence resulting
from a vendor’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide
any person requesting the same with a document setting out
at least brief and accurate information on the particulars
mentioned in points (a) to (g), (i) and (1) of the annex to the
directive. In particular, the decree does not provide for any
fine or similar sanction in the event of omission of the
particulars mentioned in points (a), (b), (c), (i) and (1) of the
annex to the directive.

Furthermore, the information in question must be given in the
document mentioned not only to ensure effective protection
of purchasers, but also to avoid distortions of competition
between vendors at the level of the internal market.

For those reasons, the Commission submits that Article 10 of
the directive has not been fully and properly transposed by the
Italian Republic.

(1) OJ L 280, 1994, p. 83.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Leipzig, by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the
case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-125/01)

(2001/C 161/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig
(Leipzig Social Court) of 21 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on
the following questions:

1.

Is a prescriptive period for bringing claims for payment
by the guarantee institution of outstanding wage claims
compatible with Article 9 of Council Directive
80/98/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approximation
of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection
of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer?

2. Does the Court of Justice share the Chamber’s view that
such a prescriptive period does not constitute a legal
provision which is more favourable to employees within
the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 80/987/EEC?

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 3.

Action brought on 20 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-128/01)

(2001/C 161/15)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Luca Visaggio, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 (1) amending
Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
stuffs, or by failing to communicate such provisions, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive and the Treaty;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 249 EC, directives are binding upon the
Member States as to the result to be achieved. Article 10 EC
provides that the Member States are to take all appropriate
measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment
of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
action taken by the institutions of the Community, and to
facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks.

The Commission submits that, because the Italian Republic
failed to adopt, or to communicate, the provisions necessary
to conform to the directive mentioned, it has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the directive and the Treaty.

(1) OJ L 235, 1996, p. 39.