Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 February 2001 in Case C-350/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bremen, Germany): Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH (Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship — Length of normal daily or weekly work — Rules on overtime — Rules of evidence)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, overtime, personnel administration, work contract, worker information, working conditions

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/5

(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for a
declaration that,

— by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
for the

the quotas allocated to it

the utilisation of
1988 and 1990 fishing years,

— by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
rules on the conservation of species through adequate
monitoring of fishing activities and through appropriate
inspection of the fishing fleet, actual landings and catch
records for both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,

— by not temporarily prohibiting, in both the 1988 and
1990 fishing years, fishing by vessels flying the French
flag or registered in French territory at times when
the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the
corresponding quota, and by finally prohibiting fishing at
a time when the corresponding quota had been largely
exceeded,

and

— by failing, for the 1988 and 1990 fishing years, to take
penal or administrative action against any master or other
person responsible for fishing after a prohibition had
been imposed,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983
L 24, p. 1),
in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing
certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207,
p. 1), under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87, and
under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 in conjunction
with Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann
and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which
it:

1. Declares that:

the quotas allocated to it

— by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
the utilisation of
for the
1988 and 1990 fishing years and by failing to ensure
compliance with the Community rules on the conservation
of species through adequate monitoring of fishing activities
and through appropriate inspection of the fishing fleet,
actual landings and catch records for both the 1988 and
1990 fishing years;

— by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying
the French flag or registered in French territory in cases
where the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the
corresponding quota and, where relevant, by prohibiting
fishing after the corresponding quota had been largely
exceeded, in both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years;

and

— by failing, as regards the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
to take penal or administrative action against any master
or other person responsible for fishing after imposition of
a fishing ban,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for
in
the conservation and management of
conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
measures for fishing activities, under Article 11(2) of Regu-
lation No 2241/87, and under Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 170/83 in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Regulation
No 2241/87;

fishery resources,

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 February 2001

in Case C-350/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Bremen, Germany): Wolfgang Lange v
Georg Schünemann GmbH (1)

(Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an
employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions
applicable to the contract or employment relationship —
Length of normal daily or weekly work — Rules on overtime
— Rules of evidence)

(2001/C 173/08)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-350/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht

C 173/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

Bremen for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Wolfgang Lange and Georg Schüne-
mann GmbH — on the interpretation of Council Directive
91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation
to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the
contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288 p. 32)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola
the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
(Rapporteur), President of
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 February 2001, in which
it has ruled:

1. Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October
1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the
conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship
must be interpreted as not relating to the working of overtime.
However, it is clear from Article 2(1) of that Directive that the
employer is obliged to notify the employee of any term having
the nature of an essential element of the contract or employment
relationship and requiring the employee to work overtime
whenever requested to do so by his employer. That information
must be notified under the same conditions as those laid down
the elements expressly mentioned in
by the Directive for
Article 2(2) thereof. It may, where appropriate, by analogy
with the rule which applies, in particular, to normal working
hours by virtue of Article 2(3) of the Directive, take the form of
a reference to the relevant laws, regulations and administrative
or statutory provisions or collective agreements.

2. No provision of Directive 91/533 requires an essential element
of the contract or employment relationship that has not been
mentioned in a written document delivered to the employee or
has not been mentioned therein with sufficient precision to be
regarded as inapplicable.

3. Where an employer fails to comply with his obligation under
Directive 91/533 to provide information, that directive does
not require the national court to apply, or refrain from applying,
principles of national law under which the proper taking of
evidence is deemed to have been obstructed where a party to the
proceedings has not complied with his legal obligations to
provide information.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 February 2001

in Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
not contested — Directive 95/16/EC)

(2001/C 173/09)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declaration that,
by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament
and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
lifts (OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 14 February 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with European Parliament and Council Directive
95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to lifts, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.