Case C-160/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, pay, social security

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/29

harmonised at Community level may be subject
to
provisions justified in the general interest such as rules
concerning organisation of the profession, qualification
and professional conduct, the Commission considers that
the French legislation lays down disproportionate and
excessively restrictive conditions for the exercise in France
of the profession in question by intellectual property
advisers lawfully established in another Member State and
supplying services in France on an isolated occasion.
Other measures — less restrictive than mandatory entry
on a register preceded by an examination — could be
envisaged, for example:

a requirement to practice under the home-country
title;

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities of 30 January 2001;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs, with

all the legal consequences which that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Error of law: given the structure of the appellant com-
pany’s production chain, which is unique in the south-
west, the Court of First Instance should have specifically
examined whether, as at the date of its adoption, the
contested regulation particularly affected the appellant.

a requirement that the person practising the pro-
fession produces his qualification;

— Distortion of the appellant’s claims.

1.

2.

3.

a declaration system (such as that provided for in
Article 22 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the
mutual recognition of architects’ qualifications) (2).

— Infringement of Article 49 EC by imposing residence or
a place of business in France as a condition for the supply
of services there on an isolated occasion.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
in architecture,
including measures to facilitate the effective
exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide
services (OJ No L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15).

— Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons for the ruling
on the plea alleging disregard of the right to seek effective
relief by bringing proceedings: the contested order does
not deal with the appellant’s argument that the Com-
mission’s
interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation
No 2081/92 (1), to the effect that that article restricts the
right to object to the procedure at Member State level,
disregards the right to seek effective relief by bringing
proceedings.

— Misinterpretation of Article 7 of Regulation No 2081/92:
disregard by the Community legal order of the guaranteed
right to seek effective relief by bringing proceedings,
which constitutes a general legal principle: the effect of a
failure to act on the part of a Member State must be such
as to permit an undertaking which otherwise fulfils the
admissibility requirements laid down by Article 7(4) to
raise an objection with the Commission.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste
against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Con-
queste and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-151/01 P)

(2001/C 173/49)

An appeal against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Conqueste
and the Commission of
the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste, represented by
A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and F. Thiriez, avocats, with an
address for service in Paris.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the
case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-160/01)

(2001/C 173/50)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig
(Social Court, Leipzig) of 30 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 12 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Karen Mau against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal
Labour Office) on the following questions:

C 173/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

1. Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide
for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
Directive 80/987/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. Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited
the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?

Question 1

Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
assembly of a chamber of workers?

3.

Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages
to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
of Directive 80/987/EEC?

Question 2

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
1980 on the development of the Association directly appli-
cable Community law?

4. Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken
as the basis for determining the reference period is that
of the request for the opening of proceedings?

5.

6.

Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period pro-
vided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
compatible with Article 141 EC?

In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.

Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-174/01)

(2001/C 173/52)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the
election proceedings brought by the electoral group
‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne
GewerkschafterInnen/UG’

(Case C-171/01)

(2001/C 173/51)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts-
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions:

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should

— Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.